Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Building Industry (Banwell Committee's Report)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what improvements are being made in the procedures of public authorities so that payments for building work are speeded up as recommended by the Banwell Committee.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I am now consulting the public authorities about the Committee's recommendations. When I receive their comments I will consider any action that may be needed to speed up payments.

Mr. Boyden: Is not one of the difficulties the overlapping duplication between the professional officers and the financial officers in certifying payment? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider

getting his right hon. Friend to send out a circular drawing attention to these things? Secondly, would it not be a good idea to ask the district auditor to draw attention to the very long delays in payment?

Mr. Rippon: I will certainly consider both suggestions, because I attach a good deal of importance to the prompt honouring of these contractual obligations. I think that local and other public authorities ought to realise that great advantages flow from prompt payment.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made with the establishment of a secretariat to extend the processes of co-ordination and investigation in the building industry as recommended in Chapter 1 of the Banwell Committee's Report.

Mr. Rippon: I am ready to provide secretarial help. I do not think it will be necessary to establish special machinery.

Mr. Boyden: Can the right hon. Gentleman be somewhat more forth-coming? What amount of money will be required for this secretariat, what grades of staff, and how many?

Mr. Rippon: That is not the question. As the consultations proceed and as action seems to be required, we will provide whatever secretarial support may be necessary. What I am concerned with is that we should not in any way undermine the existing consultative


machinery. I do not see the need for new machinery, but I will provide all the support which is necessary for the work to go forward.

Grace and Favour Residences

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that rents are paid by the occupants of Grace and Favour residences.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharples): No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that that is an appalling answer? Is he aware that in 1963 more than £81,000 of the taxpayers' money was spent on these houses? As it has often been said by the Government that subsidies should go only to those who need them, how can he justify giving a rent-free publicly-owned house to a Midland Bank director, among others, in view of the situation in London where the Rent Act is operating for another section of the community?

Mr. Sharples: These residences form part of the Royal Palaces and allocation and use of all accommodation in the Royal Palaces are matters for the Sovereign. We have no jurisdiction in the matter.

Mr. Hamilton: While allocation may be a matter for Her Majesty, getting back the income which the taxpayer is spending on renovation and maintenance rests with the hon. Gentleman's Ministry, and it is up to him to reimburse the taxpayers for the money spent.

Mr. Sharples: No, Sir. The arrangement under which we undertake responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the Royal Palaces results from a transfer to the Votes in 1831 in consideration of a substantial reduction in the Civil List. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the arrangements by which the Civil List is paid the Crown Estate Commissioners were able to hand over to the Treasury surplus revenue of more than £2 million in the year 1962–63.

Royal Parks (Playing Facilities)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how much has been spent on improving playing

facilities in the Royal Parks in each of the last 10 years; and whether he will take steps to increase the scale of such facilities.

Mr. Sharples: As the Answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that on 5th February he wrote to a Mr. Price, who is very active about seeking increased playing facilities in the Royal Parks, to say that he would be unlikely to be able to find the money to reduce the size of the sandpit in Victoria Tower Gardens and put in playing equipment during 1964? As £1,000 is provided in the Estimates for the same year for renovating the chandeliers in Buckingham Palace, does he not think that he has got his priorities a bit wrong?

Mr. Sharples: I do not think so. When the hon. Gentleman sees the figures for our expenditure on providing playing facilities in the Royal Parks, I think that he will get this into perspective. I also draw attention to the fact that this year we are providing a new sports pavilion in Regent's Park at a cost of £35,000.

Following is the information:

Expenditure on the provision and maintenance of recreational and associated facilities in the Royal Parks in each of the ten financial years 1954–55 to 1963–64 has been roughly as follows:






£


1954–55
…
…
…
10,000


1955–56
…
…
…
5,500


1956–57
…
…
…
6,000


1957–58
…
…
…
3,500


1958–59
…
…
…
5,500


1959–60
…
…
…
8,500


1960–61
…
…
…
20,000


1961–62
…
…
…
11,000


1962–63
…
…
…
34,500


1963–64
…
…
…
20,500


Total
£125,000

In addition, expenditure has been incurred on such things as grass cutting and the marking out of sports pitches, but this cannot be separately identified from the general day to day park maintenance costs.

A new sports pavilion costing £35,000 is now being built in Regent's Park; and proposals are being considered for the provision of a sports area on the site of the former U.S.A.F. camp which has just been demolished at Bushey Park.

Churches of Architectural or Historic Interest

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what plans he has for the preservation of churches of special architectural or historic interest which are no longer being used for ecclesiastical purposes.

Mr. Rippon: Following the reply I gave on 19th November, 1963, to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend, I have worked out proposals to provide substantial assistance towards the preservation of such churches. It is proposed that both Her Majesty's Government and the Church of England should make contributions to a Redundant Churches Fund which would be set up for this purpose. I would be ready to contribute to this Fund up to £200,000 over the first five years if the Church authorities contributed from their own resources at least that amount within the same period. In addition, a very small number of redundant churches of exceptional quality might be taken into the care of my Ministry. I hope to introduce legislation as soon as possible.

Wing Commander Bullus: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for this information and expressing pleasure at the happy association of Church and State, may I ask if these proposals are entirely acceptable to Church authorities?

Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir. They follow closely the recommendations of the Archbishops' Commission on Redundant Churches and they were accepted by the Church Assembly.

Mr. G. Thomas: Do I understand from the reply that this applies only to the Church of England? If so, would the Minister consider churches belonging to other faiths or denominations where there is a special architectural or historic interest, such as churches in which John Wesley preached?

Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir. I am in touch with the Churches Main Committee about this, and it will be possible to make arrangements for grants to be made to a number of churches of other denominations through the Historic Buildings Councils. It would also be possible

under the legislation that I have in mind for redundant churches of the other denominations to be brought into the care of my Ministry.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some non-redundant churches of outstanding interest, such as that at Brixworth, about which I wrote to him recently, are not fully provided for at present and cannot always be provided for under existing arrangements.

Mr. Rippon: It has, I think, been generally accepted that where churches are in use that is the responsibility of the Church authorities.

Whitehall Area (Redevelopment)

Mr. Longden: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he expects the recently appointed consultant for the Whitehall area to make his first report; whether the plans for each redevelopment will be laid before Parliament before they are acted upon; and how, since there are going to be several different architects involved for whom the consultant is not responsible, the new buildings in the area will conform with each other in design.

Mr. Rippon: I expect Sir Leslie Martin's final report to be presented in the early part of next year. I am anxious that the report should be presented as a whole rather than piecemeal, but Sir Leslie will, wherever possible, report periodically on various aspects of his commission which may call for earlier decision. Arrangements will be made for Parliament to be informed before any particular redevelopment is undertaken. Such individual architects as may be appointed will be expected to produce designs that are in harmony with their surroundings.

Mr. Longden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him is he would not agree that up to now the modernisation of London has been undertaken with an almost complete lack of imagination and sense of fitness on the part of our planning authorities; and will he give an assurance that not only Parliament but the public, before a single brick is moved in the Whitehall area, will have a chance to pronounce, because is it not the case that up to now


the public seem to have woken up only six months or so after each fresh outrage has been perpetrated upon our once lovely City?

Mr. Rippon: It is not for me to comment on what other people do, but what I do will, of course, be done with great care and consideration, not least for the views of Parliament.

Mr. C. Pannell: Although we will give the Minister credit for trying to do what is best in this matter, does he not think that he would be assisted and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, Southwest (Mr. Longden) would be assisted if in the early stages, as a kind of continuing process, a committee of this House—probably a Select Committee—of Members interested were set up, so that Parliament is not suddenly confronted with a fait accompli—a kind of Second Reading stage—and we can make a leisurely and, I hope, intelligent appraisal of this? Does not the Minister think that he would be helped in that way, rather than having the criticism at the end of the day?

Mr. Rippon: It is not for me to decide how Parliament thinks that it can best help me. Certainly I shall arrange for Parliament to be told what is proposed. I think that that one must be a little careful about this. I do not think that the modernisation of London will proceed very much faster or better by having too much architecture by committee.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to whom the architectural designs to which he has referred will be referred? Will it be to the planning authority and /or the Royal Fine Art Commission, or some other body? Who is to be the regulating co-ordinating authority to see that the designs that he has mentioned are in harmony?

Mr. Rippon: The architects will be expected to conform with the general plan, but I think that it would be unwise to dictate to them in any detail the style in which they build. I envisage that when they have brought forward their designs for any particular building, the House and the public will have the opportunity to see what is proposed, and it may well be that at that stage it would

be right to submit the designs to the Royal Fine Art Commission for its opinion.

Services Married Quarters, Gibraltar

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works, what is the total number of married quarters under construction and being planned for the three services in Gibraltar.

Mr. Rippon: At the 1st April, 230 married quarters were under construction in Gibraltar. A further 279 are planned and of these 240 should be started during this financial year. When all these quarters are completed the current requirement for married quarters in Gibraltar will have been met.

Sir Richard Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will give very general satisfaction in the Services, particularly among the married families of those serving in Gibraltar? Can he confirm that when this programme is completed there will be little or no need for the use of private accommodation in Gibraltar by married families, which accommodation is hard to find and often rather unsuitable?

Mr. Rippon: Hiring is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Some hirings are official, and I do not think that there will be a need for those. Some are private, and it may well be that some people may still want to make their own arrangements, even if they qualify for married quarters. This should ease the situation. I envisage that all quarters under construction should be completed by October this year, with the exception of about 16 which will be ready next year.

St. Stephen's Hall (Staircase)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when it is proposed to reinstate the staircase leading off St. Stephen's Hall.

Mr. Sharples: During the coming Summer Recess.

Clifton House (Rents)

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the total expenditure of public money


paid in rent for accommodation at Clifton House; and what is the rent per square foot.

Mr. Rippon: My Ministry has a lease of about 40,000 sq. ft. of office accommodation from the Church Commissioners at Clifton House, Euston Road. The accommodation is occupied by the Post Office and the Inland Revenue. It would be contrary to the Ministry's practice and commercial interests for me to disclose the terms of any lease which we may take.

Mr. Pannell: Is the Minister aware that the information he has given is rather at variance with that which I have been given, which is that a firm called Machinery Limited of Clifton House has leased space from the Church Commissioners and sub-let to the Ministry an entire floor of about 1,000 sq. ft. at 27s. 6d., for which every taxpayer, I am told, is paying in rent to Machinery Limited the excess per ft. of 27s. 6d. over about 16s. paid by Machinery Limited to the freeholders? Would that be the information?

Mr. Rippon: That may be the hon. Gentleman's information, but it is not the correct position. Our lease is direct from the freeholders, the Church Commissioners. We have no connection of any kind with Machinery Limited.

Civilian Employees, Gibraltar

Mr. Jeger: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why he has rejected the request for a 42-hour week by the civilian employees of his Department in Gibraltar; and why the request for arbitration in accordance with the constitution of the Joint Industrial Council has not been accepted.

Mr. Sharples: This claim was first made in 1962 and was rejected by the employers' side of the Joint Industrial Council, which at that time comprised the three Service Departments, the Gibraltar Government and the City Council.
The claim was renewed in February of this year, and is still under consideration by the official side of the Joint Industrial Council, which now includes the Ministry of Public Building and Works. No reply has yet been given to the trade union side and it is therefore

premature to consider reference to arbitration.

Mr. Jeger: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are two issues here: first, that it is alleged that other employees of the Government in Gibraltar, other than local civilian employees, are already working a 42-hour week and, consequently, there are different grades of workers doing the same job of work but on different bases and under different conditions? Secondly, that local faith in agreements freely arrived at with regard to wages, conditions and submission of disputes to arbitration will be shaken unless something is dose to abide by J.I.C. agreements.

Mr. Sharples: The first point made by the hon. Gentleman is a matter which will be taken into consideration. With regard to the J.I.C. agreements, one of the difficulties is that the J.I.C. on the employers' side is made up of a number of bodies. These matters are under consideration at the present time.

Brick Supplies, South Wales

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Public 3uilding and Works whether he is aware that housing and civil engineering projects in South Wales are subject to considerable delay due to the shortage of brick supply; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Rippon: I have received reports that a number of housing projects have been delayed because of brick shortages, but I have no evidence of any widespread delay and construction work is running at a record level. I have kept in close touch with the brickmakers, who have taken steps to increase capacity.

Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that spokesmen for the civil engineering and house building industry in South Wales have expressed grave concern because there is up to a year's delay in the supply of bricks? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is feared as likely to cause unemployment in the industry, as well as delay on council house projects? Will the right hon. Gentleman give some sense of urgency to the matter?

Mr. Rippon: The production of building materials is at a record level, which


should suffice to keep building labour fully employed. There are some difficulties in some areas, arising partly from a mild winter as a result of which stocks were run down more than usual, but brick production is now 6 per cent. above the record level of 1961. Manufacturers are taking steps to increase production and I am in close touch with them.

Mr. C. Pannell: Although we can take the Minister's figures overall, I remember reading in the technical Press only a week or two ago that there was a shortage in Scotland. The Minister says that he is satisfied with the overall position, but is he equally satisfied that it is uniform throughout the country? He will appreciate that areas of unemployment might be made worse if we had this sort of thing.

Mr. Rippon: I do not doubt that there are difficulties in certain areas. It is very important that local authorities, contractors and architects should decide at the earliest possible stage what they want and then register their demands. If they do that, they normally find that the position is satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Partially Blind Persons

Mrs. Hart: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what proposals he has had from the National Assistance Board regarding a revision of the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Regulations to permit the special higher scale of assistance to blind persons to be paid in cases where the degree of partial sight is so low as to preclude any normal employment or activity.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): None, Sir. The existing statutory provisions do not confine the higher scale to the totally blind.

Mrs. Hart: But is the hon. Lady aware that there may be cases of real hardship? Does she not think that if a person is in receipt of National Assistance and is at the same time severely handicapped by lack of vision, this ought to be enough to enable him to qualify for the allowance as a blind person? Will she

consider asking the National Assistance Board to regard the definition, which is crucial here, as relating to whether or not the handicapped person is able to follow his normal employment?

Mrs. Thatcher: As I think the hon. Lady knows, the definition to which the National Assistance Board works is contained in Section 64 of the Act, which says:
blind person means a person so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential.
Whether a person comes within the terms of that definition is a matter for the ophthalmologist who examines him. If he is partially handicapped, the Board can take that into account in its discretionary allowances.

Mrs. Hart: But is it not the case that there can be instances where somebody might be able to perform some jobs for which sight is essential but still not be able to follow his normal course of employment? Does not the hon. Lady think that he should be treated generously by the State and regarded as a severely handicapped person because of lack of vision?

Mrs. Thatcher: I think that he probably would. I hope that he would be treated generously by the National Assistance Board through its discretionary allowances. It certainly takes all these factors into account in determining these allowances.

Unemployed Persons (Holidays)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will introduce legislation to amend Section 29 of the National Insurance Act so as to enable unemployed persons who take their holiday abroad during traditional holiday weeks to qualify for unemployment benefit on the same basis as those taking their holidays in Great Britain.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Wood): No, Sir. It is difficult to see how the ordinary conditions for unemployment benefit could be satisfied by people who take their holidays abroad. An exception to the statutory bar on the payment of unemployment benefit for periods of absence from Great Britain would not be justified.

Mrs. Castle: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem particularly affects unemployed married women insured in their own right, such as cotton weavers, for whom no work can be found during the town's traditional holiday week because all the mills are closed? If these women go out of Great Britain on holiday with their husbands to, say, Ireland, they not only forfeit unemployment benefit but have to stamp their own cards as well, whereas if they go to Scotland they do not do either. Is not there an anomaly which ought to be looked into?

Mr. Wood: I think that, as far as this country goes, the arrangements for paying benefit are not relaxed in the traditional holiday weeks. The test has always been whether the claimant is or is not available for employment. It is not whether employment is available for the claimant, but whether the claimant is available for employment. That is the test which is applied, and that is why unemployment benefit is not paid. As regards people going abroad, it is unrealistic to suppose that the test of availability for employment can be fulfilled by people who go abroad for a holiday.

Mrs. Castle: Is not someone as likely to be available to come back from Ireland as from Scotland? Ought not there to be a discretion in the operation of this Section? Is it not too rigid as it stands, and does it not cause serious anomalies?

Mr. Wood: I think it is fair that the line should be drawn at the British Isles. One might say that someone who was sitting on the quay at Calais could get back as fast as someone in Scotland, but if Calais, why not Naples? I do not think it would be possible to go beyond the shores of this country without getting into an awful mess.

Smokeless Zones (Old-age Pensioners)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what new steps he will take to enable old-age pensioners to meet the increased fuel bills arising from the introduction of smokeless zones.

Mr. Wood: None, Sir. The White Paper on Domestic Fuel Supplies and

the Clean Air Policy made clear that the introduction of smokeless zones need not lead to increased fuel bills. The National Assistance Board already takes certain steps to help with the cost in individual cases where there are difficulties.

Mrs. Castle: Whatever the White Paper may say, the facts of the situation are that smokeless fuels are dearer than good quality coal, particularly since summer prices were introduced. Is it not also a fact that in view of our typically cold summer weather old-age pensioners must have a fire all the year round? Ought not there to be an increased allowance for these smokeless fuels in the National Assistance scales?

Mr. Wood: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady when she says that smokeless fuels, weight for weight, are more expensive than ordinary coal, but the White Paper to which I referred made it clear that the heat output of these fuels was greater and that therefore the cost for heat was less. There was a time when I could have given the hon. Lady an even more authoritative answer, but I think that now I had better refer questions of this kind to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power.

Industrial Injuries and National Assistance

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether, having regard to the increase in the number of persons in receipt of benefits under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts whose income has to be supplemented by the National Assistance Board, he will introduce legislation to increase the benefits under those Acts.

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. There has been a steady rise in the numbers entitled to such benefits and the very small proportion who receive supplements from the National Assistance Board has not increased over the years.

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad to know that they have not increased, but does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the fact that some people disabled by industrial injury or by industrial disease have to have recourse to assistance is one of the major reasons why he should


bring legislation before the House to increase the payment, particularly as the Industrial Injuries Fund now stands at more than £300 million?

Mr. Wood: I think the right hon. Gentleman will know better than anyone that the National Assistance Board has always existed to provide for special needs. Again, I think he knows better than anyone that it is conceivable—there is nothing wrong about it—that someone with a low rate of disablement benefit because he has had a small loss of faculty may qualify for supplement from the National Assistance Board. Thirdly, one reason why the Board comes into a number of these cases is because of the disregard of a certain amount of Industrial Injuries benefit.

Retirement Pensioners

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what estimate he has made of the number of retirement pensioners whose total income is such as would entitle them to a supplementary grant from the National Assistance Board but who have not made an application for assistance.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps he takes to estimate the number of retirement pensioners whose circumstances would entitle them to a supplementary pension from the National Assistance Board, but who have not applied for assistance; and what is the most recent estimate.

Mr. Wood: None, Sir. A great difficulty about making a firm estimate is that it could only be done by asking many old people to make a detailed disclosure of their circumstances, with no probability of benefit to themselves. I have considered that the right course is to concentrate on positive ways of overcoming any reluctance people may feel about applying to the Board.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister knows that he is under an obligation under the Act, which provides for a quinquennial review, to look at problems of this kind and to make an investigation. Has he any reason to doubt the estimate which has been given by many people who have made competent researches into this matter, and repeated by a well-

informed correspondent in The Times newspaper last week, that the number of people who are living below the standard set by the Assistance Board, and that means dire poverty, is 750,000 and possibly even one million? Has he any reason to doubt that? If that is anywhere near the truth, does it not indicate that there is a need for a radical revision of our existing arrangements?

Mr. Wood: I have seen those estimates and I have heard them put forward in debates in the House. Most of them stem from work done by Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn under the auspices of the Cambridge Department of Applied Economics. Whatever this estimate was, it was not an estimate of people suffering hardship. It was an estimate of the people she claimed to have found, based on a comparatively small survey, who would have qualified for assistance if they had made application. Some of the cases were subsequently investigated and, in fact, those concerned did not qualify because of capital and other resources. But in any event, I believe that the best approach to this problem, particularly in the light of Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn's survey, is to try to take positive steps to spread more widely information about the services which the Board is prepared to offer, through social workers and through local newspapers and so on. As I announced in the House, I have recently taken the positive step of putting a new leaflet in every pensions book which has the object of trying to ease the way for people into National Assistance.

Mr. Prentice: In view of the figures based on Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn's survey, is it not clear that the Minister ought to have a survey of his own because of the probable size of the problem? When he says that he thinks that not all these cases are of severe hardship, would he not agree that the figure probably includes some of the worst cases of poverty in this country, of very elderly people often living alone and living below the National Assistance level? Is not this a grave social problem which demands urgent attention?

Mr. Wood: I am prepared to consider what the hon. Member said, but so far I have taken the view that this inquiry, which it is being suggested that I ought


to undertake, means investigating, as I said in my Answer, in great detail the circumstances of many people who would not benefit at all.

Miss Herbison: Surely even though it would mean investigating the circumstances of many people who would not benefit, the Minister or his Department would also be investigating cases in which many people would benefit? In spite of all the publicity and the note in the pensions book, there are still many old people in this country where even when they know that they can get help, are very reluctant to go to the National Assistance Board, and sometimes personal contact is the step which finally gets them to make application.

Mr. Wood: All I can say is that if there existed anything like the number which Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn estimated—it is an estimate on which figures have been based in the House—I would expect that the social workers and others in very close contact with people of this kind would bring more cases to the National Assistance Board for help.

Mr. Mitchison: Would it not be a useful step towards getting rid of misunderstandings if legislative steps were taken to bring the National Assistance Board under the Ministry instead of being left under a supposedly independent Board?

Mr. Wood: I think that goes a little wide of the Question.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the very great importance of the matter, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the very earliest possible moment.

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what reply he has given to the National Association of Old Age Pensioners on their claim for a rise in their basic retirement pension.

Mr. Wood: If the hon. Lady is referring to the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations, I have had no recent letter addressed to me on this matter.

Miss Herbison: From time to time, the Association in Scotland and the National Federation have made representations

to the Minister. From the reply which was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) about the great number of old-age pensioners in Scotland receiving National Assistance, is it not clear that the time has come to give all old-age pensioners a rise in their present rate?

Mr. Wood: I have nothing to say at present in reply to the hon. Lady. She can make her own comparisons of the rate which retirement pensioners are now receiving with the rate which they received in the early 1950s.

Miss Herbison: Are we to take it that the Minister is completely satisfied that a basic rate of £3 7s. 6d. is an adequate pension for old people, no matter what the comparison may be with 50 years or so ago?

Mr. Wood: The hon. Lady must patiently await any further news which may come to her. I was saying that I have nothing to say at the moment.

Pneumoconiosis (North Staffordshire)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many claims for industrial widows' pensions in respect of pneumoconiosis have been made in North Staffordshire in each of the last three years; how many have succeeded; and how many have been rejected.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon): I am afraid this information is not available, but I have some figures which may help the hon. Member. They relate to all claims for death benefit, whether from widows or other dependants, referred for advice to the Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel at Stoke-on-Trent, which covers North Staffordshire and North Shropshire. I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is some good reason for investigating the data regarding widows? Is he aware that there is a deep sense of injustice among many widows now disqualified whose husbands


suffered a high degree of pneumoconiosis, sometimes for 10 or 15 years during their lifetime? Is he aware that there is an opinion among many medical men that in such cases pneumoconiosis ought to be regarded automatically as a contributory cause of death and a reason for granting widows' pensions? Would he, therefore, investigate what is the situation about the rejection of widows' claims and this particular aspect of these cases?

Lieut-Commander Maydon: Entitlement to industrial death benefit is dependent upon death having resulted from the disease. It does not follow, because a man had a disablement pension for pneumoconiosis in life, that he died from that disease.

Mr. Swingler: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware, quoting a case from my constituency, that where a woman has nursed a man for 10 years who is reckoned to be 80 per cent. disabled by pneumoconiosis, it creates a deep sense of injustice when she is not entitled to an industrial widow's benefit?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: If the hon. Member will be kind enough to refer the case to me, I will certainly look at it.

Following is the information:


CLAIMS FOR DEATH BENEFIT UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACTS REFERRED TO THE STOKE-ON-TRENT PNEUMOCONIOSIS MEDICAL PANEL




Number of claims referred for advice
Panel advised that death was—


Year
Attributable to the disease
Not attributable to the disease


1961
…
105
83
22


1962
…
140
93
47


1963
…
111
73
38

Note.—The figures include claims from widows and other dependants. The advice of the Panel on the cause of death is only part of the evidence which the statutory authorities take into consideration in deciding claims.

Sickness Benefit (Married Women)

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would have been the additional cost in

Mrs. Thatcher: The cost in the financial year 1963–64 would have been about £5 million.

Miss Herbison: Will the Minister have this type of case examined by the Advisory Committee? I understand that it is some time since the Advisory Committee looked at this matter. In these days, when so many women normally work full-time and feel aggrieved when, being off sick, they have no full National Insurance benefit, surely it is time at least to have another look at the matter?

Mrs. Thatcher: That figure was for sickness benefit only. If we add unemployment benefit to it, it will come to £7 million. I am certain that my right hon. Friend has heard the hon. Lady's representations.

Confinement Grant

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when the conditions on which the confinement grant is made were last reviewed; and to what extent he has taken into account, when considering these conditions, the fact that mothers who have confinements in hospital are spending much shorter periods away from home.

Mrs. Thatcher: The conditions for home confinement grant were last reviewed in 1955 and we are looking into this matter at the moment. The extent to which mothers are spending shorter periods in hospital after confinement is one of the factors to be taken into account.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the hon. Lady for that reply, may I ask her to speed up the inquiry? I think it is agreed that the situation has changed completely since 1955. Is she aware that it is the widespread practice now for women to be discharged from hospital 48 or even 24 hours after confinement, Go that the conditions are quite anomalous?

Mrs. Thatcher: We are consulting the Health Departments, who would be considerably affected by any change. I explained this to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in an


Adjournment debate which we had on the subject. But I pointed out to her that, whatever we do, the number of grievances will not be greatly reduced because on the second day after confinement about 20,000 women are discharged from hospital, on the third day about 15,000 are discharged and on the fourth day about 11,000 are discharged. I am afraid that wherever we fixed the limit a number of people would fall on the wrong side of it.

Mrs. Castle: Will the hon. Lady remember that when we discussed this matter in an Adjournment debate she agreed with me that the present situation was unsatisfactory? I am very glad that there is to be a review of the situation. Could she say when she hopes to be able to report on this situation to the House?

Mrs. Thatcher: It is unlikely that I shall be able to report before the House rises. I will do so in the next Parliament.

Limbless Ex-Service Men (Committee)

Sir R. Cary: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will make a statement about the compensation of limbless ex-Service men.

Mr. Wood: I have been considering the issues raised by Motion No. 53 on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend and many hon. Members. These issues cannot be fairly considered without taking account of other disabilities besides the loss of limbs. I have therefore decided that the best course will be to set up an independent Committee. The terms of reference which I shall give it will allow the Committee to consider two matters. First, whether developments since the introduction of the present schedule of assessments, which is common to the War Pensions Instruments and the Industrial Injuries Acts, would justify any modification to the schedule; and, secondly, whether there is any case for special provision for disablement due to amputation, either generally or in relation to advancing age.

Sir R. Cary: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to initiate an independent inquiry will give great

satisfaction to both sides of the House, particularly as nearly 500 hon. Members signed a Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name and the names of my hon. Friends? May I also on behalf of the members of the British limbless Ex-Service Men's Association thank him for the courtesy and patience which he has shown to them in this matter? Has he anything in mind in regard to the time factor in this matter, as to the pace of the inquiry, when a conclusion may be reached and above all the final steps, when the Government may make an announcement?

Mr. Wood: No, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend, to whom I am extremely grateful for what he said, further information at this stage. I will get ahead with the composition of the Committee. I hope that it will be able to start work as soon as possible, but this is a complicated subject and I am afraid that it is likely to take some time.

Mr. Mitchison: Since the Hancock Committee, which reported on this matter as long ago as 1946, was an inter-departmental committee and had wide terms of reference, applying both to industrial injuries and to war service injuries, will the Minister see that the terms of reference of this Committee will be at least as wide as those and will include the minor injuries which were taken into account by the Hancock Committee outwith its terms of reference?

Mr. Wood: Perhaps I should take this opportunity to make it clear that the purpose of this Committee will be to concern itself with the relativities of the compensation for various kinds of disability. I must make it clear that it will not be concerned with the monetary levels of compensation, because that is clearly a matter which the Government must decide in the light of the Committee's Report.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend at the earliest possible date let the House know the composition of the Committee?

Mr. Wood: I will do my best.

Mr. Mitchison: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman quite answered my Question, although he may have meant to do so. The Hancock Committee was


an inter-departmental committee with wide terms of reference and its findings applied to industrial injuries as they applied to war service injuries. It is the same question in both cases. Will the proposed new Committee have terms of reference at least as wide as those and will its assessments be assessments of percentages even if they are not assessments of amount?

Mr. Wood: The assessments which finally emerge from the Committee will be on the same lines as the Hancock assessments. The purpose of the Committee is to see whether the assessments which were fixed 18 years ago are or are not still up to date. They will apply not only to war pensioners but also to those who are industrially injured.

Handicapped Persons (Death Grant)

Mr. McBride: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1) whether he is aware that handicapped persons may be unable to take employment, or to satisfy contribution conditions for National Insurance and may remain dependent on relatives throughout their lives; whether he will re-submit to the National Insurance Advisory Committee the question of payment of a death grant in such cases irrespective of the age of the dependant; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy the hardships at present caused by its refusal;

(2) what decision he has reached on the payment of a death grant in respect of people who through disability have never been able to work.

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what steps he intends to take with regard to the payment by the National Assistance Board of a death grant in respect of those people who because of physical or mental illness have never paid National Insurance contributions.

Mrs. Thatcher: In cases of need, the National Assistance Board can provide grants during the lifetime of handicapped persons so that they need not remain completely dependent on relatives. The provision of death grant for all such persons raises difficult and wider issues which my right hon. Friend is at present studying.

Mr. McBride: Is the hon. Member aware that many people will be disappointed with that Answer? Could she not submit this afresh to the National Insurance Advisory Committee? Is she further aware that the financial cost to the nation of providing the death grant for mentally handicapped children irrespective of age would be small indeed? I ask her again to look at this matter in human terms and to alleviate a real hardship caused to parents on the death of handicapped children over 18 years of age—an alleviation of hardship which would be a blessing indeed.

Mrs. Thatcher: I agree that the cost of giving the death grant to this small group of people would not be very great. Our difficulty in the National Insurance Scheme would be to confine the grant, in the absence of contributions, to this small group of people. If we gave it to this group of people there would be a number of others who would have similar claims. Despite the absence of contributions, or a low record of contributions, they would also want death grants. But we are considering this point.

Mr. L. M. Lever: On a point of order. I thought that you were going to call me, Mr. Speaker, on Question No. 25. I want to support the hon. Member for Withington (Sir R. Cary) in that matter. I have had more connection with this question than any other hon. Member who has spoken about it. I should like to support the hon. Member for Withington in thanking the Minister for his reply to Question No. 25.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not understand what the hon. Member is trying to do. If he reflected about points of order in general he would see that we should clearly be in a difficulty if hon. Members were to talk about something of that kind, and in particular to talk about another Question, on a point of order.

Mr. Small: The hon. Lady will recognise that people are covered up to the age of 16 and then enjoy National Assistance as a right. Could not she introduce some measure of equity here, without closely applying economic principles throughout? Since National Assistance is afforded up to the age of 16, an additional ex gratia payment on death would not break the back of the nation, would it?

Mrs. Thatcher: If I understand the hon. Gentleman aright, he is asking whether the National Assistance Board could make a death grant in such cases. This was mentioned the last time we had Questions on this topic. Studies on the point have so far been a little disappointing. As the law now stands, the Board tells me that it has no power to make payments in respect of deceased persons and no responsibility for burials under the 1948 Act. The Board does, however, use its discretionary powers to help with funeral expenses in exceptional circumstances where a person who has incurred a debt in arranging a funeral is himself in receipt of assistance or living at about the assistance level and when, because help cannot be obtained from other sources, real hardship would arise if nothing were done.

Mr. Mitchison: Is not this a matter which ought to go to the Advisory Committee again? When it was considered, together with a number of other matters, as long ago as 1955, it was turned down only on the ground that there were very few cases. Is not that an insufficient ground, and ought not the question to be referred to the Advisory Committee again to see whether it can limit the task properly?

Mrs. Thatcher: If I recall aright, the National Insurance Advisory Committee turned the proposal down on account of the difficulty which I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, namely, that of providing a grant given in return for contributions in a case where there is an absence of contributions. This is the fundamental insurance difficulty. Of course, the Advisory Committee would have no status in relation to National Assistance.

Mrs. Braddock: Who is responsible for the disposal of the body if there is no income and no cash of any kind in the family? Will she tell us about that, because it seems to be a ridiculous situation?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am not responsible for that particular matter. The Board tells me that it has no responsibility for burial under the National Assistance Act. I think that responsibility is laid on the local authority in the absence of other arrangements.

National Insurance Contributions

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many increases have been made in National Insurance contributions since October 1951; and what is the overall percentage increase.

Mr. Wood: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) on 7th February.

Mr. Manuel: That reply is most unsatisfactory. Does the Minister realise that this increased contribution constitutes a poll tax which falls very heavily on the lower income groups? Have the Government considered the economic implications of this? What remedy do they suggest?

Mr. Wood: Several of the Government's recent measures have, in fact, been moves exactly away from the position which the hon. Gentleman describes. If he will look again at the table, which he has, apparently, already studied, there will become evident to him the very considerable increase in contribution!; which will be necessary to pay for the benefits which, apparently, his party is now suggesting should be instituted. Perhaps another reading of the table will enable him to be rather more explicit about what contributions would be necessary.

National Assistance (Scotland)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons in Scotland are receiving a reduced National Assistance allowance because of the operation of the wage pause.

Mrs. Thatcher: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. Lawson: Is not this information which should be available? Is the hon. Lady aware that all the people coming within this category are living below the National Assistance scale level, which is supposed to be the lowest level at which anyone in this country lives? Will she, at least, see that this particular measure is operated in as humane a manner as possible, not in as harsh a way as possible, as seems to have been the case in many instances?

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman has directed his Question to the "wage pause". I take it that his supplementary question is directed to the operation of the wage stop.
In response to the latter part of his supplementary question, may I remind the hon. Gentleman that in individual cases, which on rare occasions come to us, we try to operate the rule as humanely as possible. We have a lot of questions on this topic put to us, with well rehearsed arguments, but very few individual cases are brought to our attention.

Mr. Lawson: I take it that the hon. Lady knew what was meant by the use of the word "pause" instead of "stop" in this connection. Is she aware that we have regular examples of what seem to us to be a harsh application of the rule, where there seems to have been an effort to find the very lowest possible wage rate at which the calculation could begin? Will she ensure that this kind of practice is not continued?

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman says that he has a large number of cases—

Mr. Lawson: Frequent cases.

Mrs. Thatcher: —frequent individual cases. I can only remember one coming to me since I have been answering, and that was the one which the hon. Gentleman himself forwarded, which, as he knows, resulted in considerable relief to his constituent. If he or other hon. Members know of more cases, I should be grateful if they would forward them.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady may think that she has given a smart reply to my hon. Friend, but is not she aware that there are many hundreds of people—married men with their wives and children—who are suffering under the wage pause in Scotland particularly because of the lower rates of wages there? Is there nothing at all that she can do to help these hundreds of families in Scotland who are living below what even this Government regard as the minimum subsistence level at which families can live?

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Lady is very unjust in her strictures. Before I came here this morning, I went through every single file we had on this topic so that I could give the House an accurate answer. The hon. Lady knows the

general principle—I do not think that the Labour Party would go against it, or, at least, I should be interested if they were to suggest it—that we cannot pay more to a person when he is out of work than he could expect to get on his return to work. We try to operate this principle very humanely, and we shall continue to do so, in spite of what the hon. Lady says.

Mr. Doig: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many retired persons in Scotland are in receipt of an allowance from the National Assistance Board.

Mrs. Thatcher: On 31st March, 1964, 109,339. Some of the allowances provided for the requirements of more than one person.

Mr. Doig: In the light of a figure as large as that, does not the hon. Lady agree that the basic pension is totally inadequate and that it is time that it was reviewed upwards?

Mrs. Thatcher: In fact, the figure is slightly lower than it was a year ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the cost of financing an increase in the rates of pension is borne by contributors and the taxpayer, and this is one of the matters which has to be taken into account. It was raised, at a cost of £227 million all round, last year.

Mr. Ross: But have not we recently been told that the Government have budgeted for an increase? When shall we hear more about it?

Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Government's White Paper on future expenditure he will find the relevant paragraph.

Widows

Mr. Doig: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many widows are in receipt of either a pension of 10s. or no pension as a result of the raising of the operative age from 40 years to 50 years.

Mrs. Thatcher: I estimate that the number is of the order of 10,000. I remind the hon. Member that the age test for a National Insurance widow's pension was always 50 for widows with no dependent children. Widows who fail


to qualify under the age test and who cannot get work or are sick can now get unemployment or sickness benefit.

Mr. Doig: Does not the hon. Lady realise that women in this age group have the utmost difficulty in finding employment? In view of this fact, does not she consider that a change should be made?

Mrs. Thatcher: One of the changes made after the National Insurance Advisory Committee reported in 1956 was to give widows with no title to a widow's pension a right to get unemployment benefit and sickness benefit. This was an improvement on previous legislation.

Dr. King: While there may be argument in the House about the age at which a widow ought to qualify for widow's benefit, does not the hon. Lady agree that it is a terrible hardship that a widow who just by days or even by hours comes below the age of 50 is debarred from a benefit which her fellow widow receives by virtue of being over 50? Will the Government, at least, consider introducing some flexibility at the end of the scale when considering the eligibility of widows for the widow's pension?

Mrs. Thatcher: I agree that anyone who misses a particular benefit very narrowly is bound to feel a grievance. I am sure that I should myself. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and pass on his representations to my right hon. Friend.

Occupational Deafness

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what progress is being made with the inquiry into occupational deafness; and when this is likely to be completed.

Mr. Wood: I understand that this inquiry is making satisfactory progress, but I am unable to say when it is likely to be completed.

Mr. Prentice: The inquiry began in January, 1962. Is it not taking rather a long time? Is there any prospect of an interim report as a result of these inquiries which could be referred to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council so that it could consider the possibility of

prescribing occupational deafness as an industrial disease, as is done already in many other countries?

Mr. Wood: The inquiry is taking a long time, and inquiries of this kind are bound to do so. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is prospective research, measuring the deterioration, if any, in people with unaffected hearing at intervals of about nine months. If these prospective investigations are to teach us anything, the inquiry must take some time. The question of an interim report is for the scientists carrying out the research. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is in touch with progress and it is, naturally, keenly waiting the outcome, as the hon. Gentleman is.

Wage-related Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he has now completed his study of the question of wage-related unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he intends to introduce wage-related unemployment benefit.

Mr. Wood: I am still examining the problems involved.

Mr. Small: The Minister will recognise that, while this would be a major change, it would be a very desirable one. Will he make a statement on the principle before the end of this Parliament?

Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman can be fully assured that we should not have entered into detailed discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the British Employers' Confederation if we were not contemplating at all the possibility of this principle. When I have a statement to make, I shall make it.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that in this respect this country has already dropped behind most other advanced industrial countries? Does he not agree that he should now give us this information and that it is about time he gave us a definite statement that he intends quickly to introduce wage-related unemployment benefit.

Mr. Wood: The mere fact that I am taking a long time with this investigation is proof that I am going very thoroughly into the very difficult issues involved.

Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that Lord Blakenham, when he was Minister of Labour, promised us on this side of the House that the Government would legislate on severance pay last autumn? That subject was delayed while these talks on wage-related unemployment benefits were held. Now we seem to be no nearer a conclusion from the Government on either subject. Does not this show that the Government are very tardy?

Mr. Wood: I certainly cannot answer for my right hon. Friend, but I have given the answer which is right and, I think, justified on the issue of earnings-related benefit. I shall make a statement, if I have one to make, when I am ready to do so.

MALAYSIA (INDONESIAN INFILTRATION)

Mr. Healey: Mr. Healey (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the resumption of large-scale infiltration by Indonesian forces into the territory of Malaysia.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Despite attempts in recent months to reach a political settlement, there has been no relaxation in the Indonesian campaign of hostilities against Malaysia. The latest incident occurred last night. Full details have yet to come in, but, according to my present information, an Indonesian party, about 100 strong, attacked a security force position at Kampong Rasau about two miles inside the Sarawak border. After several hours the Indonesian party withdrew. Their casualties are unknown, but are believed to have been evacuated under cover of darkness.
I regret to say that it has been reported that five gurkhas were killed and another five wounded.
I should like to take this opportunity to express my deep sympathy to the families of these gallant men.

Mr. Healey: May I associate Her Majesty's Opposition with the sympathy

that the Secretary of State for Defence has just expressed? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although we all regret the failure of the talks in Tokyo, it is totally inexcusable that the Indonesian Government should have responded to the failure of these talks by resuming armed aggression against a friendly State in public violation of the United Nations Charter?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, in view of the increased scale of aggression which seems to be indicated by yesterday's incidents, he will look again at the supply of helicopters to Malaysian and British forces in Sabah and Sarawak? Is he aware that there is increasing strain on the Malaysian and British troops, through their being asked to exercise unilateral restraint in refraining from attacking the bases of aggression across the frontier?
In view of the real dangers to peace which are involved in the current Indonesian policy, will Her Majesty's Government consult the Government of Malaysia with a view to raising the whole question in the United Nations?

Mr. Thorneycroft: These matters raise very grave issues indeed, and I think that we all want to speak with great restraint and caution about them. I would make it plain that the aggression has been one way—that is to say, the Indonesians have been attacking Malaysia across the frontier. There have been no attacks from our side across the frontier into Indonesia. It is deeply regrettable not only that the talks should have broken down, but that their breakdown should have been marked by a further incursion on a substantial scale.
With regard to the activities of our own troops and their equipment, we shall, naturally, take, and are taking, all steps to ensure that necessary equipment is made available. Measures have been in hand for some time which are stepping up the number of helicopters available.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the British and Malaysian forces have shown great restraint in this matter for a very long time? In considering this whole question, will he say whether, as an interim plan, the Australian and American Governments are prepared to give further assistance in this area?
Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that no military equipment, or any equipment which might be useful to the Indonesian forces, will be exported to Indonesia from this country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There is no question of exporting military equipment to Indonesia. The question of Australian support raises a slightly different aspect of the matter, but the Australians are already in that area. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Are Her Majesty's Government keeping in touch with the United States of America on this matter? America might be able to help. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that some of my Parliamentary colleagues and myself, who were in this area last autumn, conveyed to some of the officials in his Department the fact that there was need for helicopters? Indeed, some of my colleagues expressed the view that a plane produced in Canada, the name of which I forget, might be of very great assistance to our troops in the area?
May I, as one who saw our troops, pay a very sincere tribute to them for the very difficult task that they are carrying out in this area?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to our forces, which, I am sure, will be welcomed on both sides of the House. I myself am familiar with this area. I have only recently come back, as has his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). We are familiar with the problems and requirements there.

Mr. Healey: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman unfairly on the United Nations point. However, since, on his own account, there has been a flagrant violation of the Charter and the United Nations itself carried out an inquiry into the wishes of the inhabitants of Sabah and Sarawak before the Federation of Malaysia was formed, would he consult the Foreign Secretary with a view to a possible approach to the United Nations, in conjunction with the Malaysian Government, on this issue, because there is a serious threat to peace?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that that is at all an unfair point. It is a

perfectly proper point. However, it is more for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, perhaps, than for me, and technically it is for the Malaysian Government. But the hon. Gentleman's point will certainty be borne in mind.

Mr. Rankin: Has the right hon. Gentleman any observations to make on the reported claim by the Indonesian Government that this invasion has been carried out by what they call irregular troops?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The technique of the Indonesians has been to organise aggression against a peaceful and neighbouring State by a combination of regular and irregular forces. It is never easy to say what precisely is the degree of irregular element in any particular aggression, nor do I think that it perhaps matters so much. What matters is that these attacks are continuing. The sooner they are brought to an end, the sooner it may be possible to reach a peaceful conclusion to these issues.

ACCIDENT, NORTH CIRCULAR ROAD

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Sir H. Lucas-Tooth (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement about the accident on Saturday morning on the North Circular Road near Brent's Cross, in which seven people travelling in a coach were killed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): This tragic accident occurred at 8.30 on Saturday morning near the intersection of Hendon Way (A.41) and the North Circular Road at the site of the Brent Cross fly-over scheme. A Coles mobile crane belonging to the Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company Limited, the main contractors to the scheme, was standing between the North Circular Road and the River Brent about 200 ft. southwest of the intersection. It was being used to erect a Scotch derrick for the construction of the 40 ft. high concrete fly-over. The base of the tripod of the derrick, which was about 20 ft. high, had been erected and the crane was being used to assemble the king post of the derrick which stands on top of the tripod. This king post was 50 ft. long and weighed about 7½ tons.
Because of the length of the king post and the height to which it had to be lifted, an extension had been fitted to the crane jib. This would be normal in such circumstances. As the crane lifted the king post vertically, the jib of the crane began to buckle. As the jib buckled, the king post fell towards the North Circular Road, dragging the jib down with it and crushing the coach, which was travelling slowly beneath it. The position of the crane was determined by the narrow space between the North Circular Road and the River Brent.
One of H.M. inspectors of factories made an immediate investigation of the circumstances of the accident on Saturday and Sunday. He has made a preliminary report to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, but a further more detailed investigation will be required. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has asked for a full report from his consulting engineers for the scheme, Sir Bruce White, Wolfe, Barry and Partners. I understand that an inquest is to be held tomorrow and in all the circumstances it would clearly be wrong for me to say more at this stage. But I am sure that the House will wish to join with me in expressing our deepest sympathy with the relatives of those who have died.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On behalf of my constituents, I would like to join in the sympathy which has been expressed by my hon. Friend to those who were involved in this horrible accident which occurred in their midst.
In view of the obvious possibility of legal proceedings arising out of what has occurred, I do not wish to say anything this afternoon which might prejudice matters, but perhaps I might ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that the circumstances of the accident give rise to grave anxiety about the safety precautions which were taken?
Will my hon Friend ensure that a very full and comprehensive inquiry is undertaken; and will the inquiry to which he referred be such that it may be made public when it reaches the Minister's hands?

Mr. Galbraith: I understand what my hon. Friend has said. Both my right

hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport are anxious to find out the facts and what caused this accident. They will do everything they can to do that as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hunter: I, too, express my deep sorrow at this tragic accident. The motor coach which was involved had come from Feltham and was taking people for a day's holiday at Southend. A number of those who were killed and injured are my constituents and I wish to extend my sympathy to their relatives and to the company. I earnestly request the Minister to investigate the accident and to hold a full public inquiry.

Mr. Galbraith: I understand exactly the sentiments that the hon. Member has expressed. I feel the same about this as he does. As I said earlier, we are trying to find out what the facts are and to establish what was the cause of this terrible accident.

Sir B. Craddock: I am sorry to say that some of my constituents were also involved in this grievous accident. I, too, express my sympathy to the relatives of those involved and welcome the fact that a further and full inquiry is to be undertaken into this unhappy business.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

Mrs. Castle: May we ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the results of the inquiry will be published?

Mr. Speaker: That question was left unanswered.

Mrs. Castle: Why?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know if the Minister would like to answer that question.

Mrs. Castle: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the results of the investigation will be made public, in view of the seriousness of this matter?

Mr. Galbraith: We want to take one step at a time. We are trying to find out, first, what happened by an investigation into the facts. An investigation is being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, by his Factory Inspectorate, and there is to be


a report which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has called for from the contractors.
In the light of whatever comes out of those two reports my two right hon. Friends will consider whether or not a public inquiry would be appropriate. I think that we must wait—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—until we have the report from the Factory Inspectorate, along with the report from the consulting engineers, before my two right hon. Friends can determine what is the next proper step to take.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1964–65

Class VI

VOTE 9A. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (REVISED ESTIMATE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum. not exceeding £4,269,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Education and Science. [This Vote, together with Class VI, Votes 9B and 9C, replaces Civil Estimates. Class VI Vote 9, and Class VII, Vote 2, for which £50,500,900 and £80,000, respectively, have been voted on account.]

3.40 p.m.

Orders of the Day — LEISURE AND SPORT

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: It is a happy fact that during the past 50 or so years cuts in the working week have greatly increased the amount of leisure we have. It is unfortunate, however, that facilities for enjoying that leisure and, to some extent, the aptitude for enjoying it have not kept pace with the increase in the amount of leisure.
There are still quite a number of young people who leave school and who have no interests of their own. When they are not working they simply do not know what to do with themselves. Already, we have seen that that has caused a certain amount of difficulty and some explosive problems. There are a great many others who have many ideas of what they want to do with their spare time, but, unfortunately, find that the opportunities for enjoying their interests are not available. That leads to a sense of frustration and a feeling that they are not able to live the full life they want.
These sort of problems, which are already considerable, are certain to increase greatly over the next 15 years. If


we properly control the introduction of automation and the extension of mechanisation there can be no doubt that the working week will be still further greatly reduced. If we are to reduce the problems that increased leisure provides—if we are to make possible the grasping of the opportunities which it will offer—we must begin to tackle these problems now.
A part of their solution is a great extension and development of the educational system, a subject which we discussed in the House last Friday, but which would be outside the scope of this debate. We are today concerned with the provision of facilities for enjoying all forms of leisure and I would like the Committee to look at the present position of these facilities—and I am referring to all forms of such facilities, not merely sport, open air, the arts, and so on.
In the arts, for example—and I will touch on this only briefly—there are a great many towns where it is not possible to hear good music because there is not an adequate concert hall. I know that the professional theatre is closing down in many areas, particularly in the provinces, but there are, there and elsewhere, many towns where amateur dramatic societies could thrive if they had a proper small theatre in which to work. As for our museums, most of them are little better than morgues—or doss houses, as I saw them described in the Report of the Society of Industrial Artists
The facilities for the youth clubs: many youth clubs are in tatty halls—disused warehouses, and the like. Good gracious me, in some of the Lancashire and Yorkshire towns there is virtually nothing for the children to do of an evening except stare at the reflection of the sodium lights on the wet asphalt. We are desperately short of youth hostels. Not all those we have are satisfactory, and others have to close down because we have not the funds to keep them in decent repair.
On the open-air side, there is a tremendous shortage of camping sites for the whole family, and there is the most inadequate access to the countryside generally. In individual sports, rather than team sports games, the most tremendous increase in popularity in the

last 25 years has been in fishing, yet that is restricted, not only by the private ownership of the fishing rights but by the pollution of our rivers, which still continues. As for team sports, children in the countryside do not, as a rule, have a chance to get a cricket bat in their hands until they have passed the 11-plus, because the primary schools have only very small asphalt yards where the children can play ring-a-roses, but no serious games.
The playing fields situation for cricket, football and other organised games is desperately bad. The opportunities for getting decent coaching are very inadequate, not only in the countryside but right throughout the country. The cricket pitches that people have to play on are usually lent by farmers. They are in use by the cows for five days in the week. They are incredibly dangerous to bat on, as I well know, and the outfield is never cut; it is ridge and furrow, and if one goes for a high one in the out-field, one is as likely as not to trip over a courting couple.
Therefore, none of us can be satisfied with the facilities that our society, or individuals or groups, at present provides. To a very large extent this is not only true for the ordinary player, but for the expert. One of my constituents, Miss Lonsbrough, who eventually won gold medals at the Olympic Games for swimming, to do her training had always to travel from Huddersfield right across the country to Blackpool to find a bath up to Olympic standards. There was another north country athlete who could only get the training he wanted in London, and his coach had to pay his railway fare there and back. At the Melbourne Olympic Games, one member of our team was so poor that he was very hard put to it to find the cost of sending letters to his wife.
The present situation is, therefore, quite unsatisfactory, and there are immediate things that the Government ought to be doing about it. They should be providing a great deal more cash for such bodies as the National Playing Fields Association, which is nearly "broke"; for the Central Council of Physical Recreation—that admirable body which needs more money to expand its coaching facilities; for the Youth Hostels Association, which obviously needs more money.
I would hope, too, that for specific projects the Government would be prepared to make direct grants to local authorities. And while they are about it, they might make a direct grant to the Olympics team, because it really is not good enough that a team that is representing all of us should go out into the world in penury. Let us give them enough money to make sure that they can be properly trained and properly looked after when they arrive in Tokio.
These are the immediate things that the Government could do, but very much more is required. Of the facilities we have, quits a few are under-used. There are playing fields belonging to individual firms that are used perhaps once—or, at most, twice—during the week. School playing fields, as often as not, are not available in the evenings, and not at all in the holidays. We need a survey of existing facilities and of the steps that can be taken to make sure that they are properly used—fully used.
Sailing is another sport that has become enormously popular. There are plenty of reservoirs where people could learn to sail, but on which the water boards or local authorities prohibit any such activity. If we were to make a survey of our facilities we might find ways of making sure that they were fully used.
We want more than that. We want regional surveys of what the requirements or facilities for enjoying leisure are in each area—what they are now, and what they are likely to be when automation and mechanisation come in. I suggest that the best way to do this would be to spend some money, and ask the Central Council of Physical Recreation to expand its regional committees; get men who are not committed to any particular sport, but are generally interested in sport, and set them to work to find out what facilities we really will need in the future. On that basis we could see what needed to be done.
However, if these regional surveys were just made independently there would be a danger of duplication. A short time ago there was an acute shortage, I believe, not only of Olympic standard swimming baths but of swimming baths of any sort. So many people have now taken to building them that we are in some danger of getting perhaps

too many. Further, if the regions were all independent there would be a scramble for facilities and there would be no means of making certain that the region whoso needs were greatest got them first.
I therefore suggest that there should be a central organisation—a sports and physical recreation development council—sitting, perhaps, in London, surveying the reports from the regions, "vetting" them, dovetailing them where possible, and then making recommendations on priorities—

Mr. Norman Cole: The hon. Gentleman has referred to swimming-baths. He might be interested to know that in the case of the new Shell building, south of the river, it was, I understand, a town planning condition that the swimming-pool there should be open during the week, particularly to school children, when it was not being used by the staff—or when it was to those members of the public, but not to the public generally.

Mr. Mallalieu: I am delighted to hear it. I hope that the example will be followed by other firms.
We should now be geting round to accepting the Wolfenden proposal for a national sports and recreation development council But that in itself would not be enough, because it could make recommendations on priorities but could not decide the priorities themselves. This is a desperately important job—

Mr. John Rankin: My hon. Friend spoke of the suggestion of the formation of a national sports and physical recreation development council. Do I take it that that would be on a United Kingdom basis?

Mr. Mallalieu: It is. It will have to be. The national regional bodies—if they can be so described—for Scotland and Wales will have an immense job to do, and they are part of the United Kingdom. There would have to be a United Kingdom body on which the Principality and Scotland were represented.

Mr. Rankin: Perhaps I may explain why I asked that question. The Vote is an English Vote.

Mr. Mallalieu: I leave that question to be decided between my hon. Friend, the Minister and the Chair.
This body cannot do the job by itself, because public money is involved, and it is such an important job that the Government, or any future Government which may come to power in October, must take the matter seriously.
That means appointing a senior Cabinet Minister, preferably one without any other Departmental responsibilities, who will become a sort of Minister of Leisure. He will have the authority to stand up to the Chancellor, instead of having to wait on the doormat until the Chancellor sends for him. He will be able to argue the case for the importance of this subject inside the Cabinet, to decide the necessary priorities and to channel the funds where they are most needed.
I want to make one more proposal. At present, clubs, individual firms like Shell, local authorities and national organisations are doing a certain amount of building in respect of sports and recreational facilities, but they do not always know what are the latest developments. They do not always know the best designs for the halls that they are building, or the best materials to use in the equipment that they are putting up. At present, there is no place where they can obtain that information at all readily.
I therefore suggest that we ought to have a sports information centre, which could supply to anybody who asked for it—an individual, local authority, or club—the latest information, such as the correct form of lighting for an indoor tennis court, or the best playing surface to lay, other than grass. It might even supply the authorities at Lord's with information about the best methods of draining their ground—and the Ascot authorities, too, for that matter. There is a need for this sort of service; for the supply of expert and up-to-date information, available freely to everybody.
All the things that I have said about sport I would duplicate in respect of the arts. We already have the Arts Council. Its activities should be greatly extended and it should make the same sort of survey of the arts that I have proposed in respect of sports and physical recreation.
These are the mechanics or machinery. The purpose—at any rate from the point of view of my hon. Friends and

myself—is not to straitjacket anybody or to tell him how he should use his leisure time. I have had enormous pleasure from playing organised games, and I would like to see others given the same sort of pleasure. But I have also seen dozens of people in absolute misery when playing organised games. I do not want to drive anybody who does not want such facilities. I do not want to forget the chap who merely wants to get out of it if he feels like it.
We must be concerned a little with the topliners in all sports. We take great pride in them, and have tremendous delight in watching them. I wish that somebody would take some interest in the comfort of the people who watch them. These topliners provide a tremendous stimulus to the rest of us to try to do better in our forms of sport. But the real concern that we feel is for the ordinary man or woman who just wants to enjoy his or her leisure time.
We do not believe that all this should be handed out on a plate—that everything should be free. The people who are taking part in any sort of leisure activity must expect to pay something for it. The trouble is that there are some things that individuals or groups cannot acquire for themselves. A thing like a playing field is a fairly obvious example. Similarly, people cannot acquire fishing rights.
I feel that there is something wrong with a society that looks only to those activities which pay their way. Society must help in all sorts of activities. It must help in its own interest, partly to prevent explosions but mainly because it exists only to ensure that its members should have the opportunity to live a full life, however each individual interprets that phrase.
There may be disagreement among hon. Members about the methods that I have suggested, but I do not believe that there will be the slightest disagreement about the immediate importance of the subject that we are discussing and the fact that its importance will increase very sharply in the near future. For the majority of people work is a bore—a drudgery—and it is quite clear to me that that drudgery will be cut down during the next 15 years if we organise things properly. If we improve education and greatly expand facilities, that increased


leisure, instead of being a menace, can turn mere existence into life and give a new and much fuller meaning to the word "life".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Grant-Ferris): Mr. Chataway.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. For the guidance of the Committee, Mr. Grant-Ferris, do I gather that in the debate we shall have two speeches from each Front Bench? If that is the case, would it be possible hurriedly to reconsider this procedure, in view of the fact that we have only a three-hour debate and that many back benchers on both sides of the Committee are interested in the subject? Will it not circumscribe the debate tremendously if four Front Bench speeches occupy part of those three hours?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member will realise that it is within the discretion of the Chair to call whom it thinks fit, and whoever catches its eye. I shall follow the usual procedure.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Christopher Chataway): In view of what has been said I shall be as brief as possible. In any case, in a debate like this it would be inappropriate to intervene for more than a few minutes. I believe that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) said that this was his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Although I am a newer Member of the House, I hope that he will feel able to accept my congratulations on the way in which he has introduced the debate. He brings a great deal of knowledge and a real love of sport to his discussion of the subject, and many of his suggestions are worthy of the most careful consideration.
The hon. Member suggested a new form of organisation and, indeed, a Cabinet Minister responsible for sport and leisure. One begins to lose count of the number of separate Ministers and Ministries that a Labour Government would introduce. The hon. Member also suggested that expenditure on the provision of facilities for enjoying leisure should be a great deal higher.
If those suggestions were promissory notes they would not be greeted with quite as much enthusiasm in the sporting world as they might have been, for two reasons. First, many of his hon. Friends who are concerned with other fields of public expenditure are suggesting a similar much higher expenditure in those fields and, secondly, the Shadow Chancellor—the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—has said that he does not believe that present Government programmes can be responsibly exceeded. Therefore, although the hon. Member's offences were mild by comparison with those of some of his colleagues, be may fairly be said to have been handing out cheques that his banker has already stopped.
I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I hope that I may be allowed to say something about the Youth Service. I believe that in conjunction with the secondary schools and post-Newsom developments going on there, the service has a concrete rôle to perform in helping young people to a fuller use of their leisure. Since the publication of the Albemarle Report there has been a rejuvenation of the service and this has been matched in Scotland. The emphasis has been on the provision of new youth clubs and the building up of a cadre of full-time leaders. The building programme is running at about £4½ million a year now and was probably under £1 million before the Report of the Albemarle Committee.
Although the work was slow to start on the ground in the early years, arrears are being caught up now. By the spring of this year about 700 projects had been finished, including the new-look Withy-wood Centre, in Bristol, in which the Development Group of the Department played a big part. The rate of building has been stepped up, but I will readily concede that so has the rate of demand and even within the enlarged programme we are not able to meet all demands immediately. But my right hon. and learned Friend attaches importance to the job of rehousing the Youth Service, and we are making progress.
The position regarding full-time leaders is encouraging. The Albemarle Committee set a target of 1,300 youth leaders by 1966. By mid-summer last year we had nearly 1,000 and there are over 200 more


in training at the National College at Leicester and at other recognised centres.
Youth clubs, both voluntary and local education authority clubs, will always depend in the main upon voluntary leaders and we have, therefore, stimulated courses for the training of part-time leaders. I am glad to say that now training is being provided in the areas of nearly all the authorities. I am quite sure that more people, particularly those with a skill or a hobby to share, would enjoy working and helping in this way in youth clubs.
A survey of achievement so far was carried out last year for the Youth Service Development Council. There was much that seemed encouraging. With new money, not only capital, but Government grants to voluntary bodies, experimental grants and local education authority expenditure, much is being achieved. Most areas and organisations reported increases in membership ranging from 5 per cent. to 150 per cent. The range of activities has widened. Young people are taking on a bigger share of responsibility for programmes and there appears to be what I regard as a remarkable growth of interest in schemes whereby young people give assistance to the elderly and others in need in the community.
One of the major needs now is to widen the appeal of the Youth Service and devise and extend new approaches to the less purposeful kind of youngsters. A lot more can still be done to meet the needs of the apathetic and those who are inclined to be anti-social.
Turning to sport, I was a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman was not more enthusiastic about the progress made during the course of this Parliament, and I say "surprised" because the Labour Party published a document before the last General Election entitled "Leisure for Living". The only figure given in the chapter devoted to sport was one of £5 million extra. Since 1960–61, capital expenditure on facilities for sport and physical recreation has risen from £5·6 million to an estimated figure of £22·5 million for this year, an increase of nearly £17 million.

Mr. Denis Howell: Nonsense.

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Member says "Nonsense". He has before him figures dating from 1961–62 and not 1960–61, which was the year I was taking. He will find, if he looks at those figures, that there has been this remarkable increase during the time of this Parliament, an increase which is, in fact, bigger than the proposed total in the Wolfenden Committee's Report, which mentioned an extra £10 million. Admittedly, the Wolfenden Committee suggested that it should be spent in a different way, but it is a fact that there was this increase.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Under-Secretary define the major headings covered by that expenditure?

Mr. Chataway: I shall be glad to do so, but I think that hon. Members would not thank me were I to take up about 10 minutes reading out all the figures in about 12 different categories which go to make up those headings. I shall be glad to write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject.

Mr. Tom Driberg: The Under-Secretary referred to a figure of £5 million as the only figure in this section of "Leisure for Living". Perhaps it would be a little fairer to point out that this was an initial sum of not less than £5 million, and make clear that this was for one year only.

Mr. Chataway: I am glad to concede that. On the other hand, I suppose that many people would say that a pre-election document is subject to a little bias in another direction. If the suggestion was that it was to be an initial £5 million only I will gladly accept that, and point to the fact that for sport and physical recreation there has been an increase of nearly £17 million over the last four years.

Mr. Denis Howell: This is a cardinal point. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, in accordance with what is contained in the White Paper Cmnd. 2177—the only information before the Committee—that the figures he has given are right across the board, including educational institutions, local authorities, Royal Parks and also, and most important, that the largest part of the sum is for educational institutions which can be said to support leisure only tenuously?

Mr. Chataway: I should make clear that I excluded provision for sport in educational institutions. Were I to include that figure the estimated total, as the hon. Gentleman will see, for 1964–65 is £35·1 million and not £22·5 million, which was the figure I quoted.
Since the new policy and organisation announced by my right hon. and learned Friend early last year grants to sports clubs and composite bodies like the C.C.P.R. and bodies for such purposes as coaching have been improved substantially. The hon. Member referred to the British Olympic Association, and I see that the Leader of the Opposition too, in a quiet moment away from politics—when he opened a sports stadium in his constituency last Saturday—was also worried that we might not be represented adequately at Tokio because of what he called the Government's niggardly contribution to the British Olympic Association. This contribution of £20,000 is, of course, the first contribution by any Government to the British Olympic Association and I am sure that the Association, which is an efficient body, will ensure, as it always has done before, that any British sportsman with a chance of doing well at the Olympics will get there.
I view with some distaste the idea of our international athletes being wholly or mainly financed by the Government. From what he said, I think that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East would agree with that and, also, would prefer to follow the practice of most democratic countries in the Western world of relying largely on voluntary effort. The new system of co-ordination under Sir John Lang, with the support of the Departments interested, is working well. One result will be a joint circular to be issued shortly to local educational authorities and local authorities in England and Wales.
Among other things this will suggest ways in which authorities may combine to improve sports facilities and undertake larger projects in their districts. Were they to do that on a larger scale some of the objectives which the hon. Gentleman had in mind might be met. The L.C.C. has organised a very fine stadium at Crystal Palace, and there is not much doubt that we need more multi-sports centres which may be too big for a single authority elsewhere to develop.
With this greatly increased expenditure, possibilities for sport are multiplying. But, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is a great deal more to the use of leisure than sport. The Education Department is concerned with facilities for a great variety of leisure-time activities, such as museums and public libraries where the numbers attending have been greatly increased, and there seems to be a shift to more serious reading. A Bill was recently passed through the House to improve the service and to implement the recommendations of the Roberts Committee.
Then there are educational television, in which there has been a striking expansion recently, and evening institutes where no fewer than 1 million people, nearly three-quarters of whom are females and the majority over 21 years of age, pursue studies each year ranging from the serious to the purely recreational. There are 250,000 students enrolled for daytime non-vocational studies. There are the day colleges which are attended also by retired people and housewives who may be studying child psychology or merely attending keep fit classes or learning cookery.
I would not pretend that one gets a full picture of the way in which people spend their leisure time even from the wide-ranging activities of the Education Department, of which I have mentioned only one or two. The Central Office of Information last year collected some detailed information which showed remarkable changes over the past decade. It is not surprising, to me at least, to learn that the major hobby of the British is gardening and that there are about 19 million amateur gardeners. More striking is the fact that there are now at least 500,000 people taking part in amateur dramatics and that there has been a great increase in the number of amateur music societies.
In addition, the numbers who go sailing on Saturday afternoons have risen from 13,000 in the early 1950s to 250,000 today. The numbers going abroad for their holidays have increased from 1¾ million to 4½ million, Golfers, traditionally thought of as a very well-to-do section of society—at least, south of the Border—have now increased to about 1 million. In fact, it may be that more people now play golf than go to


watch football, a game in which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) plays such a distinguished part.
All these developments are not primarily the result of shorter hours at work. If one considers the actual hours worked, one finds that the reductions over the past 20 or 30 years are not so striking as some people might think. I believe that there is a tendency to exaggerate the speed with which automation may necessarily reduce the hours which people work. These developments are not the result of Government planning. The Government have responded to demand and are doing so to an even greater extent where public provision is appropriate, but this enormous growth in the variety and richness of leisure time activity is due primarily to an increase in personal spending power.
It is due to the fact that wages and salaries have increased substantially more than prices. It is due to what hon. Members opposite, sometimes by misappropriating a title of Galbraith's, have sneeringly described as "the affluent society". It is due frankly to many of the products of what the Leader of the Opposition has described as the "candy floss economy".
If women are prepared to follow courses at technical colleges and on television, and to undertake correspondence courses, as they are in increasingly large numbers, it is, in part, because washing machines and other kitchen gadgets have left them with the time and energy to do so. If so many people are discovering new pleasures in foreign travel, sailing, climbing, visiting historic buildings or art galleries, it is because, in many cases, they have for the first time a motor bicycle or motor car—an acquisition which, in the words of the steering group to the Buchanan Committee, can be
an expander of the dimensions of life and an instrument of emancipation.
To meet leisure time needs it is right for the Government to increase expenditure in this direction. I have shown that spending has risen substantially—faster, perhaps, than the Labour Party thought possible in 1959—and in a number of directions faster than the Wolfenden Committee actually recommended. I

have referred to some of the outstanding needs and to ways in which we intend to meet them. I hope that in discussing further public support for these leisure time activities the House will remember that one of the greatest contributions a Government can make to a fuller and happier use of leisure is to leave people with a fair proportion of the nation's growing wealth to spend for themselves.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: I want particularly to talk about the rôle of the arts as part of our provision for leisure, but perhaps, first, I might establish my credentials across the the board by reminding my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) that I once played cricket under his captaincy, though on that occasion not with a great deal of success.
I should like also to establish my relationship with sporting activities by expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Small Health (Mr. Denis Howell). My hon. Friend has many virtues, amongst which is skill in acquiring and generosity in dispensing tickets for major sporting occasions. There was a time, a month or so ago, when he got one of his right hon. Friends into trouble, but in my case it enabled me, on Saturday last, to watch the cricket at Lord's and, in particular, to enjoy the experience of seeing the Conservative candidate for Cardiff, South-East "yorked", which is a preparation for what I am sure he will receive at the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in the autumn. I would only add that in the autumn it will give me greater pleasure than I experienced on Saturday.
This debate is in many ways related to the debate which was held on Friday, when we discussed automation. The fact that there have been many changes in our economic and social life has enabled people to have greater leisure than before. But I think that it is a commentary on the way in which we have approached this subject in the past that so often we refer to the "problem" of leisure instead of treating leisure as something which we ought to expect.
This is still a country which suffers from the Puritan tradition. We are


rather shamefaced at having leisure and rather terrified of enjoying it. If I may declare my own position, I think that there is no virtue in work. There is no virtue in work for a large number of people who, unlike most of us in this House, do not get a great deal of pleasure out of the activities which are bound to fill a great many of their daylight hours. Leisure ought to be taken more seriously, not as a problem but as something to be catered for on a much more generous scale than at present.
I said that I particularly wanted to say something about the arts. I ought perhaps to add that not only have we a Puritan tradition. We have a Philistine tradition as well. This must be the only country in which the term "intellectual" is a dirty word, where "cultural" is often a term of abuse. Changing attitudes in this respect requires more than simply providing additional funds, although this is what we are primarily concerned with today. The other day I was re-reading a book by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), to whom I am indebted in many ways.
In that he quoted Beatrice Webb's description of her honeymoon in Dublin. This is what Beatrice Webb said:
Owing to our concentration on research, municipal administration and Fabian propaganda we had neither the time nor the energy nor yet the means to listen to music and the drama, to brood over classic literature, to visit picture galleries or to view with an informed intelligence the wonders of architecture.
That is part of the Fabian tradition, the cold mutton tradition of Grosvenor Road, but it is, fortunately, not the whole of the Socialist tradition. I should like to think that it is less like our own national tradition than sometimes one is led to suspect.
A debate in another place the other day was introduced by Lord Auckland. In his opening remarks, when he was making the case for further expenditure on the arts, he said that the arts,
… while they are a vital part of our life …must, in these critical times, to some extent play second fiddle".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd June, 1964; Vol. 258, c. 492.]
If one says that at the beginning of a debate in which one wants to make a case for spending on the arts, one does

not make the case at all. It is an attitude towards the arts which treats expenditure as the icing on the cake.
We are all aware, particularly those of us on this side of the Committee, of the very high priorities which must be accorded to housing and to schools, which have been woefully neglected during the last 13 years, and to the old people, but if we do not feel that dealing with the quality of life as just as important as dealing with the standard of living, unless we make that our starting point, we will not spend sufficient on and we will not make the provision for leisure which all of us desire.
Two months or so ago there was a Motion on the Order Paper in my name and the names of a number of my hon. Friends. This was at the time when the Philharmonia Orchestra was threatened with extinction. We had in mind not simply the Philharmonia and the desirability of it not going out of existence because of lack of funds, but also, as we said in the Motion,
the present parsimonious level of assistance
for the arts. Parsimonious it still is.
The facts are familiar, I think, to most hon. Members present, but I hope that I will be allowed to remind the Committee that in the Estimates for 1964–65, Class VIII, "Museums, Galleries and the Arts", the total expenditure projected is £9,454,050—less than £10 million. That is less than the amount we spend each year on tobacco advertising. If one wants to make a comparison between the need to provide for the quality of life and the tendency to spend on procuring early death, a comparison between expenditure on the arts and expenditure on tobacco is a good one. One could put it another way and say that we spend less on the arts than we will have to spend on buying five TSR2 aircraft.
I notice that on Friday there was a reference in at least one newspaper to an important collection, namely, the Hirshhorn Collection. I should like to take this opportunity of asking whether the Government are prepared to make a statement about acquiring this collection. It is, I understand, the most definitive collection in private hands of modern sculpture, and it is in the United States. I also understand, however, that its owner is considering making a gift


of it to this country and that discussions have taken place with the Treasury. The matter seems to turn on the provision of an adequate place to house the collection.
There is a very strong feeling that unless the Government are prepared to act quickly and boldly we shall not get it. I should be most interested to hear what has been done and whether the Government are prepared to make a bold gesture. Sometimes bold and quick gestures are required, and not only in defence and foreign affairs, when the Government are always ready to act as the necessity arises.
I have referred to last Friday's debate on automation. Perhaps I may be allowed to make one further passing reference to it in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran). In the course of that debate, as I think has been widely reported, he said:
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State"—
who is present again today—
can tell us anything about what kind of school this Beatle went to.
He went on to say:
I would like my hon. Friend to tell us what the secondary modern schools of Liverpool are like now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1964; Vol. 696, c. 1746.]
The reference was to John Lennon and to his book, "In His Own Write".
I mention this because John Lennon and I went to the same school. I should like to put it on record that this is much the best local authority grammar school in the City of Liverpool, which makes it much the best local authority grammar school in Great Britain. Over one-third of all those who enter the school go to universities, and rather over half go to institutions of university level. This should be recorded, in view of the remarks made on Friday. It is not as irrelevant as at first sight it may seem to the question of providing for leisure, because it is important to realise that culture is indivisible and not to regard popular culture, which some people may not like, as something totally separate from the provision for music and the arts in the way that they are normally understood.
When I was a pre-Beatle "beatle", I regularly attended a jazz club in the constituency

of the Minister of Transport, but, at the same time, largely as a result of the initiative shown by my school, I attended concerts given by the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra. It is important to see these as two sides of the experience of many young persons. It is a mistake to regard some of the leisure time activities of young people as being, somehow, culturally unacceptable.
Although 20 years ago, due to the enterprise of my school and of the local authority, I was fortunate enough to attend concerts of the Liverpool Philharmonic it is most unfortunate that local authority provision for the arts still falls considerably short of what it might be. I noticed the remarks in another place of Lord Willis and a very interesting article by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. C. Johnson) in this month's "Socialist Commentary" in which he refers to the familiar fact that very many local authorities fail to spend as much on the arts as they are entitled to do under existing legislation. A problem for any Government is to try to find means of inducing local authorities to spend as much as they are allowed to spend.
This is very important because provision for the arts should not simply be metropolitan provision. Apart from "intellectual" and "cultural", the word "provincial", in quite a different way, is sometimes used as a, term of abuse. This should not be the case. We should all be doing our best to make sure that the provinces are able to make the sort of provision which, in some ways, the capital can make. This is not easy. Many local authorities are heavily burdened with expenses, some of which no doubt will shortly be transferred to the Exchequer. Equally, the rating system being what it is, it does not enable even the best local authorities to organise their finances in the most convenient way.
Yet it still remains true, I am afraid I must say, irrespective of politics, that the attitude of some local authorities to the provision for arts is the Poor Law attitude—still attempting to provide a national minimum, not imaginative enough to see that the provision ought to go beyond schools, housing, and the normal services with which local government is associated.
How can we encourage local authorities to do more? I simply want to refer to the North-Eastern Association of the Arts, which has been referred to by the Arts Council as the prototype for patronage. It is an admirable association, and its present success is partly the responsibility of its secretary, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, a former Member of the House, who, happily, will return here after the next election. Recently, it has had a great deal of success in encouraging local authorities to spend an unusual amount of money on the arts. I think that the North-Eastern Association of the Arts has now persuaded local authorities to contribute something like £40,000 a year to its activities, and a further £30,000 or thereabouts comes from the Arts Council.
The Association has been very enterprising in finding ways in which activities can be brought to people living in out of the way communities, and, in particular, I would commend its initiative in developing a very enterprising transport scheme by which, where it is impossible to take concerts and exhibitions to outlying communities, people are able to travel subsidised to enjoy the facilities which some of the bigger towns provide.
There are one or two disappointing features of its report. One of them, I would say, is that industry, on the whole, has failed to make the contribution to the expenses of the Association which I would have liked to have seen. Perhaps one can say, in passing, referring not to last Friday's but last Thursday's debate, that if the companies named by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East are anxious to know what to do with their surplus funds they could well divert them from the Tory Party to further provision for the arts. They would certainly get a great deal better value for money.
I am commending this North-Eastern Association of the Arts because it does seem to me to be a very worth-while regional enterprise which has encouraged local authorities to spend more than they previously did, and which might be copied in other parts of the country. I would be interested to know whether the Government have taken any steps at all to make these activities more widely known and whether there is any hope that

further provision will be made for the sort of activities for which it is responsible.
Of course, the field in which provision is most of all required is capital expenditure. A number of times references have been made to the French practice, by which I think about £250 million is made available over a period of four years for what is called cultural equipment. The truth, as I understand it, is that while there can be sometimes generous contributions towards current costs there are no Exchequer contributions towards capital expenditure.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in an earlier capacity, had a great deal of experience of the need to improve the infrastructure of the area of the country to which I have been referring, and he then acknowledged, to however limited an extent, the need for very substantial capital expenditure for the physical rehabilitation of the North-East. I hope that he may be able to say that the Government have in mind some substantial capital expenditure towards provision for the arts not only in that part of the country, but also other parts of the country as well. Certainly, capital expenditure is very much needed.
In the last resort the question about arts and leisure is this, whether the arts are thought of as something for "them" or something for "us". I think that it is true that for a large number of people, for many reasons, the arts are for them. I should like to believe that in a few years' time generous expenditure and better organisation will enable many people to say that the arts are for us.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers), referred to certain excerpts, which he read, as the cold mutton of Socialism. I was a little disappointed that he started by denigrating—

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: I think that we ought to get this quite clear. The reference to cold mutton was, in fact, to the fare normally provided by the works of Grosvenor Road. Whatever view the hon. Member takes of Socialism, he ought not to misquote me.

Mr. Harrison: I am most grateful to the hon. Member. I was going on to say


that I very much regretted that he went on to the denigration of what had been achieved in housing for the old people and in schools and housing over the past 13 years, because I think that anybody will admit that a very great deal has been done. Possibly, one should refer to those remarks as the corned beef of the current Socialist story.
This is a very short debate and, consequently, I will try to touch on only a very few aspects of leisure and sport. The other day, in another place, an excellent debate was introduced by the noble Lady the Baroness Burton of Coventry. It gave a very comprehensive survey of the problems which this country may well face with decreasing time being taken up in earning a living and more time being taken up in living.
This will be an extremely difficult problem in a small country with such limited land area and large population as there is in the United Kingdom, and without a considerable amount of planning and thoughtfulness as to what can be done to use the facilities which are there and the resources which there are in the United Kingdom we shall run into awful trouble and will end up with a tremendous waste not only of the land area but of the wonderful facilities and a lot of the beauty which this country currently has.
Before I get on to space for leisure I should like to refer to something which has already been mentioned by previous speakers and that is the financing of sport. It is a very great step forward that there has been a Government grant in order to assist the Olympics team to go to Tokio. For all that, today, with the size of the team which is required, and with the lack of private individuals who can support such a team, I hope that the Government, should they be asked, will consider a larger grant in order to assist this team going to Tokio, so that not only may it have an adequate number of athletes, who may not otherwise be able to go there, but that it may also have the very best in what one may call the supporting troops—good trainers, which it should have, good doctors, and so on, to go to Tokio with the team. Unless we find sufficient money we are likely

to make fools of ourselves in public internationally on such a great occasion.
Over the next few years with increasing leisure we shall have to find and rope more and more people into part-time activities. More and more people must be made interested in the arts, in self-education, or education through courses which are provided part-time in local technical colleges. They also must be made interested in sports of different kinds and other types of leisure occupations. It seems to me from what I have seen in my constituency and locally that very often these sports and occupations are concentrated round one person in a village.
I know, for instance, of one small village which presents from time to time an excellent Shakespearean production. I have a theory, which, I admit, is my own, that one should see only two types of Shakespearean presentations—either the kind produced at Stratford-on-Avon, with really first-class actors, or the kind produced in the village. I think that there is nothing Shakespearean worth while seeing between those two.
In this village, which is known to one or two hon. Members, a Shakespearean play is produced every second year entirely through the energy and leadership of one woman. Similarly, in another part of the constituency a weight-training club is organised in a couple of lock-up garages each week for between 10 and 20 people. This is run by a welder from a local factory and the whole enterprise rotates round that one person.
If we are to have an increasing number of these small efforts, which I am sure can contribute to the enjoyment of leisure and fulness of living of the whole community, there should be some place from which moderate financial help can be obtained for the small one-man show. We often talk of grand operations like the Crystal Palace National Recreational Centre, which is a first-class effort, but, equally, a large proportion of the population are associated with small organisations which have a great struggle to obtain funds. I hope that we shall not neglect these organisations when we are thinking of finding finance for sport and leisure activities.
My main appeal to the Minister is that we should look carefully at the problem


of space for leisure. It has been suggested already in the debate that playing fields could be more fully utilised. This is so. One often finds playing fields which could be used a great deal more. At the same time, grass has a limited life and where a school appears to be selfish in not allowing a local football club to use its ground the reason generally is that the grass is not capable of taking the extra games without the pupils who have first call on the ground being deprived of its use. Therefore, we must make sure whether ground dependent on grass is the only ground where football and similar games can be played.
Similarly, we must look not only at the playing fields we have but at areas of land which are available for recreation. To give an example of the kind of planning which I should like to see, I would mention the Blackwater Estuary, one of the last unspoilt areas of natural beauty within 50 or 60 miles of London. This is an area which is currently used for a great deal of sailing and a certain amount of bird-watching and swimming but there will be increasing demand for more facilities for sailing. Already, during the last couple of years, in that estuary the Essex County Council has taken over the concrete slipway which was used to build the power station at Bradwell-juxta-Mare and has used it as a sailing centre for the youth of Essex. The County Borough of West Ham has a barge near Heybridge. These are only forerunners of the demands which will be made on that area.
Several people have recognised this and have asked for planning permission to develop marinas. It seems to me that a marina or some development of that kind must come, but it would be disastrous if that type of development comes about simply because one planning application is successful and before a careful look has been taken at the whole area with a view to deciding which is the best part for sailing to be zoned in the estuary and which is the best place for water skiing, for bathing, and for power skiing from which, incidentally, I am now suffering having had a bad fall yesterday.
I should like to see the Minister get the various local authorities together so that they can co-ordinate their byelaws to make sure that there is the requisite protection

for bathers from the speed of power boats in certain areas. Simultaneously, let us preserve certain areas for the unique fauna and flora of this region. I have used this estuary as an example because I enjoy a good deal of recreation there myself and know something about it from personal experience.
With the motor car and the mobility of the population and better roads and more time and more spending money, unless something is done very soon to zone these areas for preservation and for this and that kind of activity, we shall have a hotch-potch and all the areas which might be preserved for flora and fauna and natural beauty and peace will be destroyed. I plead especially that if such a plan is developed we should have silence zones in these recreational areas. These are places from which rowdy people like myself, with power boats, should be excluded and where people can walk and enjoy communion with nature and the peace of the English foreshore and countryside undisturbed.
That is how I would like to see some recreational areas developed in order to enjoy these facilities. But I also make a plea for some research into what one might almost call "play buildings". I have already briefly referred to the fact that grass does not last forever and, therefore, one has to have artificial types of track. Not only will we have a greater demand on these tracks and for playing fields, but I believe that we shall find it increasingly hard to provide the land for all the playing fields we want. We shall, therefore, have to build large recreational buildings.
I was immensely impressed one night in Rotterdam. I saw a building with the extraordinary name of "Ahoy". I never found out the derivation. It was a comparatively simply constructed building which looked as if it had not been very expensive. I paid my 60 cents. and inside found a tremendous amount of activity. There were basketball and other courts for seven-a-side football. All sorts of activities were going on under the one roof. There was an opportunity for various teams to play, irrespective of the weather One of the things which always staggers me about the United Kingdom is the way in which sports are planned as if the British weather is kind.
It is not kind at Lord's at the moment. Indeed, it is almost invariably unkind and unreliable.
We should carefully consider whether we should not build some centres throughout the country where recreational facilities of an energetic form could be located. They should have swimming pools attached. I do not share the view that there is now almost a surplus of swimming pools. I believe that there is still room for many more covered and heated swimming pools, particularly in the industrial areas. In addition, there is a demand—as there should be—for some form of gymnasia, and these would be suitable for these big buildings.
I was interested to note that in Oxford—I do not know whether it is on behalf of the University—£60,000, with a promise of more to come, have been given for building a gymnasium. I think that I am right in saying that there are only three gymnasia in the United Kingdom available to the public and where the whole series of Olympic exercises can be done. That is the situation in a country with a climate like ours and a population so thick on the ground. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider what can be done for indoor recreational facilities and also for the planning of outdoor facilities.
I do not suggest that we should go as far as the United States, where a 28 volume work on Outdoor Recreational Resources was produced. But at least there is a case here for the Ministers concerned—the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Education and Science—together with my hon. Friend, to consult on what can be done to see that our increasing population, with its increasing leisure and mobility, has a chance of enjoying the facilities and the more satisfying leisure occupations which at present are not widely enjoyed but which will become quite ruined unless they are zoned and planned to a certain extent.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: I am extremely glad to follow the hon. Gentleman who followed me as Member for Maldon, because I agree so strongly with what he said about the Blackwater

Estuary. This is about the last bit of unspoiled coast within 50 miles or so of London. It has been constantly threatened and nibbled at in recent years, not least by one factor which I do not think he mentioned—the insistent pressure for more and more caravan sites. These, indeed, may be, within their proper bounds, necessary and desirable, but, obviously, if we have too many of them the whole quality of that sort of place—which depends so largely on its sense of solitude and great empty skies—is lost for ever and cannot, therefore, be enjoyed by those who flock there in the hope of enjoying it. That is one of the dilemmas confronting us.
I suggest that, in addition to the local authorities concerned, who, as the hon. Gentleman said, should get together to discuss this with some urgency, the National Trust, which has recently been paying attention to the problem of saving our coast, and also the National Parks Commission should consider whether the Blackwater Estuary, and perhaps some other similar areas, should be treated as special cases.
I have only one small reservation to make on a particular point mentioned by the hon. Member. It is entirely admirable that there should be the youth sailing scheme that he mentioned, but, in introducing it, the county council, in my view, could have taken rather more care of the feelings and interests of the local inhabitants and should not have seemed to be debarring villagers, who had enjoyed certain rights of access for centuries, from using that quay.

Mr. B. Harrison: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I was one of those foremost in fighting the county council at one stage because of the high-handed way in which it went about this scheme.

Mr. Driberg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was, and I believe that the protests did some good. I hope that similar mistakes will not be made in future.
It may well be true, as the Joint Under-Secretary of State said, that we sometimes exaggerate the imminence of full automation, the speed with which this scientific revolution is going to overtake industry and all of us. What he said sounded a little like whistling in the dark: it reminded me of such remarks as "It


can't happen here". But even if he is right, surely it is safer to exaggerate the imminence of full automation than to ignore or understate it, because we all agree that it brings some enormous problems with it and that they are not ones which can be solved overnight. They are not short-term problems. It may take a generation—20 or 30 years—fully to bring about the necessary changes in mental attitudes, to help the people fully to enjoy the immensely greater leisure that will be theirs. It is very much wiser to anticipate and plan for this major change in our society, even if an element of exaggeration is involved, than merely to brush it aside.
It is for this reason, also, that I think that the subject of today's debate is not by any means of minor or marginal importance. On the contrary, if the subject is taken in its widest sense, it confronts us with problems that are really second only to the major problems of our day—problems of war and peace, and the economic problems with which it is allied. Moreover, although, of course, it is true that if one is starving and homeless one wants food and a roof before one wants to see the ballet, nevertheless no civilisation can be called great which has not produced and nurtured great artists.
I am convinced that this problem of the use and the quantity, and, still more, the quality of our leisure will confront us increasingly in the years ahead. When the Under-Secretary says that we exaggerate, I recall that a couple of years ago, when I was last in New York, I read that the New York electricians had just succeeded in negotiating a 25-hour week. It may be a 20-hour week by now—or a 10 or 15-hour week for all or most of the industrial workers by the end of the century. So I think that we must take the matter pretty seriously.

Sir Spencer Summers: Without wanting to dissent too much from what the hon. Gentleman said, in many cases the reduction in the hours of work is merely bringing to a lower level the point at which overtime begins.

Mr. Driberg: I think that that may be so for the transitional period. I do not want to go too deeply into the technical details—indeed I should not be competent to do so—but I believe that in a relatively short time—perhaps by the

end of the century, when many of us, except the youngest among us, will not be sitting here—it may well be that: the majority of people will only have to work 10 or 15 hours a week.
We cannot resist automation. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, in a very remarkable speech last autumn at Scarborough, we cannot be Luddites. We welcome automation, so long as it is introduced after maximum consultation with all those concerned, which has not always been the case in the past, and with maximum care for the inevitable human anxieties and difficulties; for these difficulties, quite apart from economic considerations, add up to a very formidable human and social problem.
The age of automation can offer for mankind, at first in those countries which are advanced industrially and ultimately everywhere, a prospect of unexampled and unprecedented leisure, of a freedom from drudgery which has hitherto been available to and enjoyed by only a very few fortunate or privileged people. In such conditions the words "work" and "leisure" may become increasingly meaningless as a distinction. Creative artists, research scientists, and many other people whose work is their whole life and who are entirely absorbed in it and love it, obviously will always continue to work very long hours indeed. That is as they wish. But the people who will have most leisure may well be those who, as things are, may find it least easy to accommodate themselves to it.
At least, however, this is an advance that we can accept with a clear conscience. Great civilisations of the past, including the Athenian democracy, for all their superb achievements, have often been based on the existence of a caste of slaves—perhaps members of conquered races, people regarded as less than human and with no rights. Even if we wanted to, we should not have to do that. We shall have our slaves, indeed—but they will be called machines.
But the alarming thing about this prospect is that we are almost totally unprepared for an age in which few will have to work more than the few hours that I have suggested may be the possible maximum by the end of the century. I also


fear that the economic and industrial problems of the transition to automation will be so absorbing and so complex that there may be a tendency to overlook the equally difficult problems of the use of leisure. That is why I think that it is essential, as has been suggested, that a Minister, or somebody with Ministerial status, should have this subject under his direct care and control, possibly in association with the Minister of Education or possibly with some other governmental set-up. I am sure that this should not be ignored by any future Cabinet of any party.
Tremendous mental adjustments will have to be made by millions of ordinary people and by political parties which, in the past, have always had to concentrate, quite rightly and inevitably as things have been, on the problem of full employment, of getting work for everyone. The new problem is how to use an enormously increased amount of leisure. Another aspect of it is that it may obviously tend to increase our present problems of juvenile delinquency, because crime arises as much from having nothing to do as from a positive desire to do wrong. So this subject is of practical importance: it is not just an abstract or airy subject—and the centre and heart of it is the problem of boredom.
Young people, as we have seen, are already bored if they have too little to do. So are old people who have to retire when they feel that they still have many years of good work in them. So, too, servicemen on long leave get bored after a week or two: it is a familiar phenomenon. This is one of the evils flowing from our inegalitarian, class-stratified educational system; and it calls for an urgent and immense expansion of higher and adult education. For it is, after all, mainly among the under-educated and under-privileged that leisure has led to law-breaking. There have always been what are called the leisured classes-some used to call them the idle rich—and though some of their financial activities would seem to me anti-social, they did and do manage to fill their time with travel, sport, and some of the arts, agreeably enough, and do not usually land up in court.
An enormous educational drive and a pretty big adjustment of attitudes are,

therefore, needed before a whole leisured society can develop harmlessly. We need far more of the facilities outlined so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) in his opening remarks. The Under-Secretary spoke of, I think, 700 new projects, but he could not, of course, tell us straight off—one would not expect him to—how they were distributed. One of the points about the survey which my hon. Friend asked for—it was stressed very much in the document "Leisure for Living"—is that there is this great maldistribution of playing-fields, swimming-pools, and so on, as between the South, which, if not adequately equipped, is rather better equipped, and the North, where so many children, as my hon. Friend said, have to learn to play games in back streets and have to walk perhaps miles to find adequate playing-fields.
All this ought to be done by a Sports Council, a National Council of Sport, analogous to the Arts Council but working very closely in co-operation with such admirable voluntary bodies as the National Playing Fields Association, with the local authorities, and with all the other bodies concerned about this matter. I am sure that Government action is needed: Government action has been taken, but I am sure that more is needed, more specific Government action in the way of setting up a Council of the kind we have mentioned.
I think that the Under-Secretary fell a little below the standard of the debate when he talked about the vote-catching nature of the expenditure mentioned in our 1959 document. I assure him that it was not so. I do not honestly believe that there are very many votes in this kind of subject. We put in these figures after considering them very carefully. They were definite commitments. Moreover, they represent, as he must know very well, an infinitesimally trivial amount in relation to the country's total Budget, or to the total defence budget. If he looks at the last page of the document, he will see roughly how much it works out at. It is really derisory.

Mr. Denis Howell: If we are to be accused of vote catching because we mention in our pamphlet an expenditure of £5 million, the Under-Secretary ought


to remember that the pamphlet produced by the Conservative Central Office at the same time had exactly the same figure of £5 million.

Mr. Driberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) for reminding me of that. I always suspected that the Conservatives had had an advance glance at an early proof of our pamphlet, because their little pamphlet was rushed out in an enormous hurry long after it was known that ours was about to appear, and there were these extraordinary coincidences of figures and of other features of the two pamphlets. I seriously think that ours was the first serious attempt by any major party in the world to deal with the problem of leisure as a whole, the new patterns of patronage of the arts, sport, and all the rest of it. In any case, as my hon. Friend says, accusations of vote-catching at this point exactly cancel themselves out.
Having mentioned some of the problems and handicaps of any age of leisure as we approach it, might I mention a few of its advantages? The great central advantage seems to me to be simply the intrinsic one which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) mentioned. I agree with him strongly that work is not the chief end of man. Human beings are made and are entitled to enjoy a vast range of activities which may include creative work but which may more often be activities that might be dismissed as mere pleasure or fun. Do not let us dismiss fun as "mere".
Some hon. Members will have seen the announcement that the Civic Trust is hoping to develop the whole of the Lea Valley area as an enormous green wedge of recreation through one of the dreariest parts of East London. I am not sure that even the Civic Trust has realised fully and imaginatively how big this scheme could be. The Lea Valley could be a play area for the whole of Greater London and the adjacent counties. Incidentally, part of it might very well be devoted strictly to fun, since this is one of the posible sites for the great project which that genius of the English theatre, Miss Joan Littlewood, is now working on—a palace, park, or "laboratory of fun", as it was called in her article in the

"New Scientist" a few weeks ago, which some hon. Members may have seen.
Another advantage of much greater leisure is that if one has only an hour or two and nothing much to do in the evening, one is apt to turn on the "telly", to watch it. fall asleep and go to bed. There will be time once more for reading, I am glad to say, as well as for watching television; even for reading books. There will be time, also—and this is perhaps a slight paradox—for more leisurely travel, for slower travel. We will not have to be in such a hurry. True, if someone in Hammersmith wants to go to the fun palace in the Lea Valley, he will be able to get there in about three minutes—by high speed monorail, of course—but the rest of us will be able to wander around on foot, or on bicycle, or even by car, exploring the beauties of our own and other people's countries. Last, and certainly not least important, there will be much more time for service to others, for voluntary service both at home and overseas. This is an obvious corollary to the whole idea of having more free time to spare.
So, if only we have the wisdom to train ourselves aright for what lies ahead, to impart true values, to provide the necessary physical facilities, not to tell people how to use their leisure, but to see to it that many good ways of using it are available, then this coming age of leisure can, after all, be a golden age of mankind.

5.28 p.m.

Sir Knox Cunningham: It was a great pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. L. Mallalieu) opening the debate, almost as great a pleasure as he used to give to many people in his youth in his play at Twickenham. He has touched on a number of aspects and it was important that he should have agreed that the debate should range over the United Kingdom as a whole. I am sure that that is right. In Ulster, just as many young men and women are keen on taking part in sport as in this country, and our outlook at Westminster should be on a United Kingdom basis.
On Saturday, I was watching some schools shooting for their shield in Northern Ireland. One thing which particularly struck me was that the winning team was captained by a girl. I


hope, in the future, to see the Ashbur-ton Shield being won by a team from Ulster and captained by a girl. However, it is on a United Kingdom basis that we are discussing sport.
There are two different views. One is the concentration on the top, which means on the Olympics, on the people who are experts, those who will eventually go to bring glory to our country. I thought that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East was a little unfair in speaking of our Olympic team going out in penury. That statement was answered by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr Chataway), and I do not want to deal with it any further other than to say that I did not think that it was a very fair remark.
I think that the other view is important, not the Olympic team, not the people who represent Britain, but the general run of young people who are interested in sport, people who may never hope to reach the heights of skill in their sport, but who get great pleasure out of it, possibly more pleasure by finding that they are never quite good enough, that they never score more than inners, that they can never play football quite as well as the next man, can never score more than 10 at cricket. People of this sort are important.
Each of us has a sport in which he is particularly interested. I should like to touch on the sport of amateur boxing. I do so because today the general atmosphere tends to be unfavourable towards it. I read recently that the Headmaster of Eton is withdrawing his school from competitive boxing. I think that is a mistake. I am glad that he has not stopped boxing at the school. I think that it is a mistake because I should hate to see the Etonians of the future under-privileged in boxing as compared to boys who have gone to other schools and who are members of the London Federation of Boys Clubs and have taken part in its boxing competitions. I am using that only as an instance of the unfavourable atmosphere in which at the moment boxing is regarded by the public in general
I should like to see the Government doing something about this. I hope that my right hon. Friend may be able to say

something which will give encouragement, I should like to see it treated in this way: We must see that the instruction is of the highest quality. That is the first thing. I appreciate people's worry about the danger to health and some people's fear of brutality. I think that they are both wrong but the way to get round it is to see that the instructions are of the highest quality. I remember Bill Child, who was the instructor at Cambridge, a very great boxer himself, three times amateur champion of England, whose genius lay in being able to instruct others and to bring out their skill by his enthusiasm. I have heard him described as the greatest boxing instructor in the world and I certainly have a tremendous admiration for his skill, humanity and qualities of character. I think that we want a much higher standard of instructor. We do not want to be content with somebody who has become a professional and possibly not a very successful professional and who then tends to be taken on by a club or school and given the chance of training boys to box. It is inevitable that more money is needed.
But our main aim must be to raise the standard and people will have to be paid better if we are to have a better quality of instructor. I know that the Amateur Boxing Association has the machinery and that it rules sport well and competently, but I think that some help and encouragement and finance must be given by the Government before we can get such a scheme on a proper footing. I should like to see much more amateur boxing throughout the country. It is not a question of compulsion, because it can never be that, but a question of encouragement and of instruction so that the boy taking part does not get hurt. The aim is not to take punishment, but to avoid punishment, to learn how to defend oneself and to use one's skill and exercise—this is why it is an art as well as a sport—natural ability to the full. A boy can learn the rudiments, but in the end he himself must develop his own style and character. He will develop his character because he will learn initiative, courage, to take his chances and to develop himself.
I defy anyone who has experience of fighting in the ring—and the harder the fight the more this holds true—to come


out of the ring without some sense of affection and admiration for his opponent and with no sense of bitterness or ill will. That is one of the reasons why boxing should be encouraged, because I believe that it is good for character and a sport which allows a man to develop himself fully, and because no man who is unfit can ever box properly. If we give the best instruction that is possible, and have good refereeing, there is no danger in amateur boxing for boys, but the referee must be first-rate and so must the instruction.
I should like to refer to the wider aspect of sport in general, and that is in the help that is given—again, not at the Olympic level—to boys and girls throughout the country by voluntary organisations. I am thinking particularly of the Y.M.C.A., which has canoeing courses at Botley, near Southampton, and at Lakeside, one of its national camps. That means that during the winter canoes are made at Y.M.C.A.s which may be nowhere near the river—and when summer comes parties take their canoes to the water and learn how to use them. That seems to be imaginative and helpful. A great number of people would never be able to experience that pleasure if they had not the encouragement given by such an organisation.
Then there are the football leagues—I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) is particularly interested in this—and many hundreds of teams are organised by the Y.M.C.A. Again, to my particular delight, the Y.M.C.A. encourages not only boxing, but judo and archery, another excellent form of individual sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) has already referred to weight lifting. He corrects me by saying "weight training", but I think that there is also weight lifting as well in certain areas. These are forms of encouragement given by voluntary organisations.
I have picked out only one, but there are many others which help with sport. I mention, in particular, the Y.M.C.A. whose national championship, on 23rd May this year, was the first to be held at the Crystal Palace. That national athletic championship, as my hon. Friend

the Under-Secretary, who was himself a brilliant athlete, will appreciate, was a great help to people all over Britain who came from various local associations and who took part in it.
I shall not detain the House further except to say that I hope that the Government will encourage sport, as a result of this debate, not only at the top level but on the level of the ordinary boy or girl who is taking part because he or she enjoys sport.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I follow the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) on the point of unexceptional performers, and I offer no apology for returning to coaching. I raised this matter during an Adjournment debate on Tuesday, 16th July, 1963, a year ago, when I urged the creation of a recognised profession for coaches with security and promotion opportunities which would endow them with status—a kind of hierarchy of coaches unified in one system throughout Britain. I then believed that the responsibility for coaching young people under the age of 18 should be taken out of the hands of amateur bodies.
Replying to that debate, the Under-Secretary said that he was unhappy about the prospect of coaching being taken out of the hands of amateur bodies. He said that they had undoubted enthusiasm for their sports. He said:
I do not believe that this would be the right way to proceed. We want to build upon the coaching schemes that have already been successfully launched."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1953; Vol. 681, c. 494.]
Subsequent to this debate I decided to send out a questionnaire which I had prepared on the organisational problems of sport to about 198 sporting bodies and individuals in Scotland. Among the questions I posed was this one:
Do you think that there is a case for establishing a hierarchy of national coaches responsible far those under 18 not at school and bearing no relation to amateur bodies?
I must record straight away that the majority opinion—though opinion was by no means unanimous—was on the side of the Under-Secretary. It was felt by my correspondents that the amateur bodies should be used and not by-passed and I now accept this view.
Let us also understand that if the amateur bodies are to be responsible for coaching the not-so-expert performer, they need a great deal of help. Perhaps the consensus of opinion contained in the answers to my questionnaire may best be summed up by the secretary of an amateur club who said:
I would like to think that we cater fairly adequately for the performer with high potential. But frankly this happens only because I give up every spring and summer weekend to the club. About this I do not complain. However, what does get me down is the endless letter writing that my wife and I have to undertake after our work almost every night of the week. If you want us to undertake any wide-scale coaching, then I or the club must have help with the business end of things.
The general feeling was that it would not be too difficult to find coaches willing to help enthusiastic, though inept, youngsters to become more proficient and thus enjoy themselves more. But there were conditions. There should be no slog-work of sending out notices of time and place to teenagers scattered round the town; no booking of fields, tracks or pitches; no booking of buses for away matches; no ordering of equipment and submission of bills to this or that committee; no filling up of entry forms for this or that competition; and, most important, no undertaking of the business of filling up finance books.
From the welter of evidence, often conflicting, which came to me last summer and autumn from the 198 sporting bodies and individuals in Scotland whom I approached, one point emerged clearly. If, like the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, we are to put our trust in the amateur bodies to undertake the coaching of young people who have left school, we must provide them with effective administrative assistance. I offer suggestions about how this should be done. A register should be drawn up—preferably by a sports development council proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), or otherwise by the Ministry—of those amateur bodies who are serious about wide-scale coaching—not coaching potential international athletes but the enthusiastic amateurs. Administrative centres should be provided in big cities, say, two in Birmingham and Glasgow and one each in Edinburgh and Leeds, where the secretary of a registered body may get prompt administrative assistance. The advantages

of the economies of scale should be reaped, and all sports, from judo to mountaineering, should use the same centre.
In towns, the arrangements should be more flexible. Ideally, a sports administrative centre is desirable. On the other hand, it might be more realistic to make it an obligation on either the town council office staff or the office staff of the chief education officer to accept the administrative work of secretaries of registered bodies. What is important is that these centres should be genuinely local and accessible, and not 30 miles away in a regional metropolis.
Similarly, in rural areas, I do not see why, after the payment of a modest sum from a sports development council or the Ministry, administrative work could not be undertaken by the local office. If money is to be spent on sport, this is the point of optimum return.
There is a question which anyone who puts forward this sort of argument is obliged to tackle. It is: where are administrators of supervisory grade to be recruited? My view is that they could be recruited from the P.T. staffs of schools who have attained their early fifties. We may be told, "You are robbing the schools, and teacher supply, in all conscience, is difficult enough." I just do not believe it right that a man should be obliged to teach physical training when over 50 years of age. Those who do not obtain a position similar to that of director of physical education for their authority, often find that in later years their existence is rather grim and pathetic. Either a man demonstrates the double forward roll, or whatever it is, long after he is not really able to do so, or alternatively, the physical education of the pupils suffers because their P.T. teacher is too old to carry out the job. There are few teachers who are "evergreen", like Stanley Matthews.
Many young men would like to become P.T. teachers and are qualified to do so. They would be highly successful in this important job, but they shy away from the thought of having to sweat it out at a time of life when they will not be so nimble as once they were. If there were some guarantee of administrative service for them after the age of 45, I believe that this would significantly increase the number of P.T. teachers rather than decrease it.
Because there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, I will content myself with making the one point that we must look at the question of administrative centres; we should set them up in cities and perhaps use existing facilities in towns and rural areas. If we are to have support from amateur bodies we must ensure that they get all the chores done for them. Otherwise, we shall find that the average performer will not be catered for but that their energies will be saved for the exceptional performer.

5.49 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: I am sorry that, through no fault of my own, I was prevented from hearing the opening speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. B. W. Mallalieu) and most of the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. If, therefore, I touch on ground which has already been covered, that is the explanation.
I do not know whether membership of a committee is a reason for declaring an interest. As a member of the executive of the C.C.P.R. for many years, I can testify to the great satisfaction felt in that body about the growing interest and generosity of the Government and the Treasury in respect of the matters we are debating.
Reference has been made to the great importance of this subject. As a collaborator over a great many years with Dr. Kurt Hahn, I should like to testify to his philosophy, which may be summed up by saying that the task of education is to produce the whole man. I am sorry that the claims for further assistance for sport, in whatever form it may be, are so frequently advanced on the ground that automation will give people so much leisure that we had better begin to prepare the facilities which for the first time they will be able to use and which up to now they have not been able to use. This was not an unreasonable summary of the case put by the hon. Member for Maldon.

Mr. Driberg: No.

Sir S. Summers: It sounded very much like it.

Mr. Driberg: First, I am not the hon. Member for Maldon but the hon. Member for Barking. Secondly, I put it on

much wider grounds than that. I was not referring to sport alone when I said that people needed to learn to use leisure creatively.

Sir S. Summers: I do not wish inadvertently to misconstrue the point which the hon. Member made, but he certainly seemed to make that point. I do not believe that for a great many years the effect of automation will be that the working people of this country will have so many hours on their hands not taken up with earning their living that it will become a major problem to keep them out of mischief. The public demand for all sorts of things will continue to be insatiable, and the wives at home will be keen to see their husbands elsewhere earning their living, so that they are unlikely to be worried too much with the amount of time available for leisure.
It is precisely because I think that the argument rests on far firmer ground that I am sorry that so much weight has been given to the argument based on automation. There are many reasons in our present society why physical fitness, which is part and parcel of the use of leisure in the form of sport in the wider sense, is particularly important today.
I do not want to seek to undermine the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Stockton on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers), who drew attention particularly to the cultural side of leisure. It is not a question of putting one against the other, because they are complementary, but there are many aspects of our modern way of living which present problems and create a lack of balance which physical fitness in its broadest sense can do something to restore. There is great pressure to get into universities. This will no doubt be modified as the number of places available is increased, but at the moment there is great pressure to pass examinations and to reach the top of the queue in order to get into university. The bookworms seem to be the most likely to get there, irrespective of the fact that bookworms are not the only people whom the universities would like to turn out into the great world afterwards.
The growth of the towns, the movement from the countryside into the towns and the addition, we are told, of 3½ million people in the south-east of


England all create circumstances in which the opportunities for people to live a balanced life and to keep fit will become increasingly difficult. We are told, too, that in all sorts of ways the opportunities for leisure are becoming increasingly restricted if only because of the number of people who want to use such facilities as we have. If we are to create the whole man and to prevent the distortions which the present shape of society brings with it, it is essential that we pay full attention to the opportunities for providing scope for outdoor activities in order that leadership, judgment and proper balance may emerge from our educational and other facilities.
I do not think that these things will be given a proper place in our society, nor will proper account be taken of this aspect, until they are taken into consideration by those concerned with planning. There is no doubt that as the standard of living in this country rises, as it has unquestionably risen over the last 12 years, there follows a tremendous demand for sport of all kind, a demand which did not previously exist because people could not afford it. It may take the form of going further afield to get the form of leisure activity which a person wants, and this may arise from the fact that he can afford a motor car. It may be that fresh interests are aroused by tasting these things for the first time. But without doubt, the pressure of those who are interested in facilities for training is becoming so intense that difficulty is arising.
I am a land-lubber, but I am told that people who own boats are falling over each other for lack of opportunity to use them because of the heavy demand for this type of recreation. This applies to many other forms of activity. A demand is growing up not only because the number of people living in this country is growing but also because those already living here seek to express themselves in this way as the standard of living rises. There is a welcome change of outlook among people concerned with sport in wanting to take part in it more and more and no longer being content to watch others doing it on television. I have always thought

that one of the most insidious diseases in this country was "spectatoritis". In so far as people are demanding opportunities to participate in these sports instead of watching others do so, this is a welcome change in ideas.
Moreover, there is a tendency, arising partly out of the improved standards available, for people to pay more attention to the individual forms of activity such as mountaineering, ski-ing, water ski-ing and golf, rather than to forms of sport which need a team of eleven or more in order that the game may be played. When the sport is played in ones or twos, instead of it being used for groups of eleven or twenty-two, the amount of space required, and the number of facilities required, automatically rises.
Many of these ideas, and particularly the interest in solo activities, have come about in part from the spread of adventure training, through such organisations as Outward Bound, with which I have been concerned for many years, and the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. Such ideas are expressed in other organisations, too. The boys clubs have developed far more adventurous activities for their members than was the case ten or fifteen years ago. County councils have centres for adventure training to which young people can go for a week-end, a week or two weeks. North Wales is littered with splendid expressions of this idea, which has grown up over the last few years. This is very valuable in itself, in that young people are participating in this form of character training, but in addition, if it engenders a wish to participate in it afterwards, for example in mountaineering or sailing, this is an additional dividend of great value. But it fosters an increasing demand for the facilities which we are discussing today.
I do not know how far it is possible for this problem to be dealt with satisfactorily with the information available at present. Without knowing more about that, I should not like to speak strongly in terms of a national survey on the subject, because it may well be that a great deal of knowledge is already available which is required to see to what extent Government help is called for and in what way. I fancy that a great deal of information is already available and that


if it were assembled and put together in the best way, it might suffice for the purpose.
Another point that arises out of the great enlargement of these activities is the importance of proper attention being paid to safety. In this connection, it is greatly to be welcomed that those who have been concerned to note the number of accidents to young people, particularly in the mountains, arising from lack of adequate knowledge on the part of those with them and responsible for them, have led to an investigation to see how far minimum standards of competence can be devised and made applicable to those who wish to take parties climbing or or expeditions. If only because in all adventure training young people are virtually presented with controlled danger, it is essential that those concerned should pay adequate attention to safety and should do what they can to see that the benefits of facing danger are not overlaid by the unnecessary risk which is run in the process.
I greatly welcome the fact that minimum standards have been devised. I hope that proper publicity will be given to them and that all concerned will do what they can to strengthen this purely voluntary attempt to instil at least a minimum degree of competence into those I am describing.
Not very long ago a conference was sponsored by the Royal College of Surgeons to look into accidents of all kinds. A working party produced a very constructive and helpful report in advance of the conference and, as a result, consideration was given to setting up a body of medical people whose knowledge and experience would be available for those responsible for presenting young people challenges in which danger exists. For example, the knowledge in the medical world of the risk to young people of exposure and how to deal with it is far too limited in scope. It is a relatively new line of country. If people have put at their disposal highly qualified knowledge on this subject, and perhaps later a handbook on the subject, then the problems which arise in many circumstances will be avoided. Without this, some serious risk of loss of life might ensue.
In the same context there is the question of the type of clothing which ought

to be worn by people going out in all weathers to undertake hazardous adventures. I understand that valuable experiments are being undertaken into this subject, and we in Outward Bound are paying great attention to the opportunities which we have for testing materials and equipment of all kinds. I hope that the Government will regard themselves in this matter not only as the provider of money but as the dispenser of knowledge which exists in one place for the benefit of others who may in that way more readily be able to use it.
Our efforts to improve safety are not, of course, in any way intended to minimise the adventurousness of the various activities which are undertaken. On the contrary, they are intended to make people more willing and keen to participate because they know that unnecessary risks are eliminated. For this reason, in my view, the Government themselves have a very important rôle to play in the development of all manner of activites, mountaineering expeditions, sailing or whatever it may be.
I hope that, as a result of this useful debate, the Government will feel that they have the backing of both sides of the House in playing a far more positive rôle than has been customary hitherto in developing administrative measures, greater facilities, and the like, not only from the point of view of the need to fill leisure intelligently but also in order that our people may be more healthy and more balanced, to the great benefit of British society as a whole.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I hope that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) will forgive me if I do not follow him. There is very little time left.
All hon. Members will agree that music today plays an extremely important part, perhaps an increasingly important part, in people's lives. To a certain extent, the measure of its importance is not realsed by people in many of the advanced societies because music has become, often regrettably, a background to their lives of which they are not particularly aware.
Professional musicians in this country have achieved exceptionally high standards. Our symphony orchestras are to


to be compared with symphony orchestras anywhere in the world. The major broadcasting orchestras and musicians have similarly high standards. As an ex-working musician myself, I am well aware that, during the period since the end of the war, the semi-professional and the professional musician in almost all kinds of music has attained a very fine standard of reading and technique. Among the public, too, there has, in recent years, been a growing interest in music because of its more ready availability through modern mechanical media, recordings, tape recorders and the like. But the case which I wish to advance is that, if these mechanical media are not controlled, the musical profession will face an uncertain future.
I have said that the standards of professional musicians in this country today are high. I suggest that they are high because the men at the top of their profession rest, as it were, upon a fairly broad base of musicians of lesser ability. I put it to the House that, if we do not have a broad base from which musicians can go to the top of their profession, the standards at the top will surely suffer in the coming years, and, as I see it, there is a danger of this happening.
There has been a radical decline in employment opportunities in the musical profession during the past few years. The general secretary of the Musicians' Union gave an example to the National Music Council conference in June, during the Brighton Music Week, pointing out that, whereas some years ago there were in Brighton about 400 professional musicians employed, there is regular employment today for little more than 40. A similar situation exists in my own area.
Throughout the country, as in London, hundreds of theatres have closed during the last decade. Although it might be suggested that the standard of musicianship in many of these theatres before the war was sometimes not particularly high, it is nevertheless true that many musicians who later went to the top of their profession gained the necessary experience in that kind of employment. To give one notable example, I understand that Sir John Barbirolli began his musical life in a cinema playing the 'cello.
It is not only a matter of declining employment opportunities in theatres. There is a similar situation in the dance halls. Some hon. Members might consider that this kind of music is not particularly important in the nation's cultural life, but I suggest that there are only two kinds of music—good music and bad music, depending on how it is played. I have had a little practical knowledge of the difficulties which experienced musicians have had and are having in getting work in the dance halls. Moreover, it is not often recognised that in serious music the total scope of employment for musicians in symphony orchestras, ballet, opera and broadcasting embraces only about 1,500, and this creates, perhaps, fewer than 40 vacancies in any one year.
In this situation, more help and encouragement than we have had hitherto should come from the Government. We are told that we now have nine symphony orchestras in Britain, and this is much better than at some periods in our history, but it is worth pointing out that, for example, Germany has 100 orchestras, and that countries with much smaller populations do better than we do. For instance, Switzerland and Holland have proportionately many more orchestras than we have. Only three of the four London orchestras receive any kind of financial assistance, and the total grants which these three receive from the Arts Council and the London County Council equal only one-quarter of the subsidy which one orchestra in Germany, the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, receives.
I hope that there will be a better approach to this matter in future. I think it right to address myself here to the Opposition Front Bench rather than to the Government Front Bench. My hope is that we shall have greater Government subsidy for our symphony orchestras and for music generally. Although local authorities are taking small advantage of the provision in the 1948 Act which allows them to spend up to a 6d. rate, if they were given more encouragement by the central Government much more could be done in the building of theatres and concert halls, the putting on of concerts and dramatic performances, and so on. I close by asking my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to consider the question whether, when a Labour Government are returned, as


they surely will be in October, if a local authority is prepared to spend money on purposes of this kind under the 1948 Act, the central Government will think of giving a proportion of money themselves according to the amount spent by the local authority.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: This has been an unusual debate. It is three years since we last had any sort of debate on leisure as a wide-ranging subject, as distinct from special aspects of it, and this debate has been remarkable for the high standard of the contributors—I hope that it will be maintained till the end—who have brought unique and varied experience to bear upon the matter. The Joint Under-Secretary of State certainly did another four-minute mile in his speech, and I think that he was fully justified in so doing. Indeed, if one can offer any criticism at all on that aspect of the matter, it is that we have had a rather short debate on a very important subject.
This debate takes place at a critical time. I put the provision for leisure alongside health, education and welfare as one of the aspects of life for which it is the Government's job to provide. All of us—this must be said again—start from the point of view of the individual. It is not our job or our desire to organise individual leisure, but it is very much our responsibility to see that all individuals, irrespective of their tastes or aptitudes, can enjoy to the full what they want to enjoy. I say that the debate comes at a critical time because—here I disagree with the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers)—we are facing both a shorter working day and a shorter working week. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that we should be putting our heads in the sand if we ignored both these trends and did not plan for both a shorter working day and a shorter working week, treating them separately. They present two very different problems.
These things are happening at a time when there is much greater affluence. I can tell the Under-Secretary of State that we on this side do not sneer at affluence. Indeed, if I have one criticism to make of his speech—I do not want to be too critical—it is that there was throughout his remarks the strain that it is not the

duty of the Government to enable people to enjoy themselves. In my view, it is. Why on earth should we apologise for making people happy and able to enjoy themselves? Why should we attack '"spectatorilis", on which the hon. Member for Aylesbury cast aspersions? At this moment, millions of people are dutifully tuned into the broadcast reports of the Test Match. Why not? It is a matter of great national concern. It was a matter of great mourning for those who could not get to Ascot on Friday and Saturday. I feel the same about the sport which I hold dear. We have not provided imaginatively enough for spectator interest. Although we all want to encourage people to participate, there is nothing wrong in recognising that sport at its highest is also great entertainment. It ought to be entertainment, and it serves this nation jolly well. We should not apologise for spectator sports.
The case for a coherent strategy has been well made out. This is the great criticism we make of the Government, that in their approach to these matters, in the speeches we have had from the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he was in another place and from other Government spokesmen, there has been no appreciation of the need for a coherent strategy in planning for leisure. All the recital of information which the Under-Secretary gave us today about the number of people going on holidays and so on was very important, interesting and noteworthy, but it was further evidence of the Government following events. There is no sign of the Government anticipating events or providing for them.
Today, there are 7 million motor cars on our roads. In a short time, there will be 11 million, and we shall soon have about 20 million people cruising about the countryside in their motor cars at weekends, not knowing where to look, not knowing where to go, but wanting somewhere to look and somewhere to go. Even the Minister of Transport, although he might well not like it, is very much involved in the provision for leisure.
Five or six different Ministries are concerned here, and this is why my hon. Friends have made the case that the structure of Government in this connection is wrong and that we really ought to have a senior man taking over responsibility. Because we want more Government support in leisure, we want this man


to be a Cabinet Minister, preferably a Cabinet Minister without Portfolio. He would not be an additional Cabinet Minister, but beneath him he would have a Junior Minister far more actively encouraging the arts, recreation and sport than is being done at the moment.
I am glad that some hon. Members mentioned education. Education, particularly its content, is very important. This might be thought to be outside the scope of the debate. I would not like there to be any political interference with the content of education. I understand that the Ministry is doing some good work, and I want to say a few words of encouragement. Perhaps one of the most important things we can do is to enable people to make intelligent choices in leisure. We must enable people to enjoy whole life, to be whole men. Nourishing the mind and extending the body physically should be our concern.
Although we on this side want a Minister with major responsibility, who would have a junior Minister under him, I want to make it clear that we would use all the voluntary agencies. We are very much opposed to any political interference in sport, art or anything else. There are some good agencies—for example, the Arts Council, the National Parks Commission and the National Trust. It would be very much our concern to use these agencies, in addition to which we would want a sports council, which the Government have consistently opposed. Incidentally, the Joint Under-Secretary spoke in favour of a sports council in the House. I regret that he has not been able to convert his right hon. and learned Friend to this very intelligent point of view. I hope that even in the last few months of this Parliament a sports council will be set up.
The Joint Under-Secretary quoted some figures on finance, which he frankly told us we have not got in front of us. This puts us rather at a disadvantage. When Ministers quote from figures they usually let hon. Members have the source of their information and see that it is before the House of Commons. It is clear, even from the Command Paper which I mentioned in an intervention, and on which the Government now rely, that the £35·1 million

about which the Under-Secretary spoke includes almost everything under the sun—cemeteries, flower beds, Royal Parks, youth clubs and education. It is not possible from analysing these figures to find what the Government are spending.
The greatest single obstacle to doing things about leisure is the block grant system of financing local government. This system was designed to stop local authorities being encouraged to expand or, at any rate, to ensure that if they did so they got no help from the Government. The first thing that must be done is to stop the block grant system. We on this side of the Committee accept the commitment that we return to a percentage grant system in education and leisure. If we want theatres, sports grounds, recreation centres, and so on, we accept the responsibility that we, as the Government, must help to provide and finance them.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary mentioned the youth service. I am delighted to know that it is doing well. I had the honour and privilege to serve on the Albemarle Committee. It is five years since that Committee produced its Report. I remember the great arguments that we had on the Committee about how many full-time youth leaders there should be. We pitched it at the lowest possible figure, on the ground that this was all we could expect the Government to provide. We obviously pitched it too low.
I am glad that one or two of my hon. Friends mentioned boredom. I agree that this is a great factor. This was borne home on me at Whitsun when I sat in the Winter Gardens, Bournemouth listening to a rather remarkable—indeed striking—performance of Tschaikovsky's Piano Concerto while the "mods" and "rockers" were gathered outside smashing the windows in. The extra percussion effects were not appreciated. The performance was ruined for those sitting inside. We appreciated afterwards when we looked at these people that they did not know how to start providing for their leisure. Leisure, what life is for, its ethical content, indeed its spiritual content, is not being got over in our schools. We must accept a great share of responsibility for that.
We on this side think that the method of setting up the Arts Council is first class. We do not complain about much of its work. The great complaint we have about the Arts Council is that it is not given enough money. This is a complaint against the Government. There is so much more the Government could do. We believe that there should be no more closing of theatres. We believe that we should actively encourage the opening of theatres and concert halls. The Government accept the standard of one concert hall per 100,000 of population. This does not overstate the need.
We would certainly encourage the Arts Council in its great work. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) made the point that we provincials recognise that all the great centres of art—Covent Garden, the National Theatre, and so on—must be in London. Nobody objects to this. They are provided for, in the main, by taxpayers living outside London. Those of us who come from the Provinces, Scotland and Wales are entitled to much more value for our money than the Arts Council can show us at the moment. I do not blame the Arts Council. I blame the Government for not making it possible for the Arts Council to make the tremendous art centres that we have available throughout the country.
Sport is important and is, perhaps, the greatest point of issue between us this evening. We are all committed to a sports council. At the moment five Government Departments are dealing with it—the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Scottish Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, and now even the Foreign Office, which threatens the World Cup football matches, on the ground that if the East Germans win it might not be possible to have them over here. I know all the arguments about N.A.T.O. and the Berlin wall, but this is the very first time that a political decision taken by any Government in this country has interfered in sport. In that sense, it is lamentable.
There is no co-ordination or planning. On the subject of school halls, we cannot afford great community halls which are occupied for only 30 hours a week. Gymnasiums in schools must be available to the community in the evenings. On the question of planning, there is a magic

formula—70 by 40—which education authorities are not allowed by the Ministry to exceed. Seventy by 40 may be all right for a school, but it is of no possible use for adult leisure and sport. It will take only one badminton court. If it was 50 by 50 it would take two. A hall 80 by 50 would provide three badminton courts and one basket-ball court.
There must be co-ordination about the provision of communal buildings, even in education. If we had the system which we on these benches want, the Ministry of Education would be kept up to scratch by the Minister responsible for sport. There would be a two-way traffic of opinion. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Daly ell) about providing help through the C.C.P.R. or a similar body—preferably the C.C.P.R.—towards the administrative costs of so many voluntary organisations which should be encouraged.
Apart from co-ordinating Government Departments, the other great case for a sports council is that we must stimulate, encourage and co-ordinate local government activity, particularly in the regions. We cannot have an Olympic swimming pool in every town, but we should have one in every region. Such decisions as where it should be, what the priorities are to be, etc., must be taken by somebody. This work should be undertaken by the Minister. I should like to see the C.C.P.R. acting regionally as the agent, bringing local authorities together and stimulating them to spend money. Under the 1948 Act local authorities can spend up to the product of a 6d. rate, but they are not doing it—first, because they get no grant incentive, and secondly, because nobody stimulates them. There is no coherent pattern of leisure.
The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in blissful ignorance of the needs of the nation in respect of Olympic swimming baths, is still refusing permission to local authorities which wish to erect them. The Ministry is saying, "You may erect a swimming bath, but not one of an Olympic standard". I agree that we do not want baths of Olympic standards everywhere, but any authority which has the initiative and will to erect one in an area where one does not exist, particularly if one


is needed, should not be refused permission to do so.
Many questions need to be asked by a sports council or a similar body. For example, what are the priorities—school halls, tracks or rinks? This is important if we are to have a sense of direction, because we must discover just what are the changing patterns of leisure, remembering that the demands for leisure-time facilities are changing all the time.
Do we want, nationally, another Crystal Palace? Probably not. Regionally, do we want more centres for the C.C.P.R., remembering that more sports recreational centres are of great importance? I believe that these centres are of great value and that their establishment should be encouraged whenever possible. Hon. Members have already spoken about the importance of research into the materials used in sports and other leisure pastimes, along with investigations into the best size of halls and so on.
I do not know why the Joint Under-Secretary was so shamefaced about giving the figure of £20,000 which had been made available to the Olympic team. I welcome that sum, although I believe that it was grossly inadequate. Nevertheless, it was a halting step in the right direction, although the choice which is posed should be considered. The Government decided to give the £20,000 before the teams are selected, so we do not know the basis on which the participants will be selected; for example, how many top-class international athletes will be competing as against those who need international competitive experience?
The general effect of the Government's parsimonious attitude is that people who should be competing in 1968 will not get the experience of competing internationally in 1964. The Government should not underrate the importance attached to international prestige gained at Olympic meetings. The average Briton places a great deal of importance in this international competition and realises that an up and coming sportsman is unable to do well unless he has sufficient training in an international atmosphere.
No one can know this better than the Joint Under-Secretary, and I hope that he will say that not only every athlete

who can acquit himself well will be going to Tokyo this year, but that every up and coming athlete who should have a chance of competing internationally, but who will not be ready for perhaps four years, will also have an opportunity of going to Tokyo, otherwise we will be failing both our sportsmen and ourselves.
I agree that the pattern of recreation is probably moving away from team sports to individual pastimes like camping, canoeing and climbing. This is a good thing. Nevertheless, this means that we must not only cater for the 10-mile radius, to which reference is so often made, but we must also consider a sensible green belt policy. If we cannot build on the green belt, let us at least play on it. In the 80 to 100 mile radius we must ensure that the countryside is accessible to all people, and a great deal of improvement can be made here.
I urge the Committee to consider, for example, the Pennine Way. It was planned by the late Hugh Dalton in 1951. He said in 1952 that it would be opened the following year. On 14th July, 1952, the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said he thought that it would be opened in the autumn of that year. It is still not open, 14 years later. That is typical of the lethargic approach about which we are complaining.
Access to the countryside is vital to people like ramblers, and although I do not wish to quote at length—because I realise that the Lord President is anxious to speak—I have received an example from the Ramblers' Association concerning the experience of ramblers from Morecambe who went on the Earl of Sefton's estate. That estate is noted for its grouse. Indeed, in 1913 an all time record bag was made there, of about 12,000 grouse. which were caught on the estate.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: Caught?

Mr. Howell: All right, shot—anyway, they were caught. On the occasion of which the Ramblers' Association complains the Morecambe ramblers were hailed by the keepers, who turned loudspeakers on them and said, "Are you coming down or will we have to come up and fetch you; or shall we set the dogs on you and tear you to pieces?".
Presumably the Morecambe ramblers, who were on a hill being addressed from below by the keepers, were extremely worried, to say the least. I see the Lord President leaning forward, anxious to rise to make his contribution to the debate. Since he complained about the Labour Party not being able to keep its hotheads in check, he might at least keep himself in check. I shall take an extra few minutes now.
When considering the question of recreation generally, there are many other points to consider, such as our coast line. There are about 800 miles of our 3,000 miles of coast line available for recreation. We must fight for these remaining miles and I hope that the next Government will do all within their power to keep them available for the public. I hope, equally, that the National Trust and Parks Commission will be given more powers to develop and so provide more centres and parkland for recreational purposes. The Youth Hostels Association can probably do more than anything else to get youngsters out into the countryside and thus out of trouble. At present the Association needs about £100,000 merely to stand still. That is a shocking indictment of the nation.
To sum up, the Labour Party initiated this debate because my hon. Friends and I recognise the magnitude of the problem and intend to meet it, to provide for it on an imaginative scale and to provide facilities right across the board for the arts, recreation and sport. We believe that it must be the responsibility of Government to take fresh initiatives and to co-ordinate activities and, where necessary, to provide the means to do this.
This Government have taken a few halting steps in this direction but have made no real progress because they have no basic philosophy of the fullness of life. They do not recognise the pressure of intelligent opinion and this is seen by their having appointed a Minister who is responsible for education to take some responsibility because, apart from the nature of that appointment, the very thing which sportsmen object to is the fact that that right hon. Gentleman has so much to do that it is inevitable that he will do little in this sphere.
For the nation as a whole, the purpose of leisure and of the facilities that the Government must provide for it must be to enable people to enrich their personalities and even to learn to derive pleasure from the luxury of doing nothing. In sport the great crime is to deny sportsmen the opportunity to develop the fullness of their potential and, for the nation, the great crime is for people to be unable to take intelligent choices. On each count the Government stand condemned.

6.40 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Quintin Hogg): We have had an interesting and constructive debate and, despite the attempt of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) to inject a little party feeling into his rapidly repeated peroration, I think that on the whole the Committee has been happy to discuss this important subject in a relaxed atmosphere, rather remote from party polemics.
I was grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) for introducing this enormous subject in what I thought was a very thoughtful speech, although I do not agree with everything that he said. We have known each other for more than 30 years and have debated with each other on various topics on a great number of occasions. I have never enjoyed him better than when I heard him this afternoon.
There is, I think, no danger of either party underestimating the importance of this subject. There was a little skirmish between the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about the two rival party pamphlets issued before the last election, but I thought that although there may have been a slight difference in reasoning the truth was that, independently, the experts on this subject of both parties had been working on extremely similar lines and had come to remarkably similar conclusions.
I am very glad that this should be so. I would agree that it is not by any means proved that this will be a great age of leisure as a result of the introduction of automation. I cannot


say, of course, what will happen at the end of the century, but my own belief is that until the whole world is industrialised to an extent that does not appear to be about to happen within that period of time, there will not be leisure on that scale. All I know is that there is no sign at all of us, who have more than a little entered the age of automation, increasing the amount of leisure.
On that matter I differ from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East. I have been particularly at pains to discover the situation. I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to give me the figures, not of the normal working week—which has, admittedly, consistently been reduced since 1945—but of the actual hours worked on the average. He informed me that in April, 1948, the average hours worked were 45·3. By 1955, the figure had gone up to 46·9. In 1963 it had gone down to 45·2, and in October, 1963, it had risen again to 45·6. It has therefore really been virtually constant over a period of much more than 10 years.
I believe that the proof of the matter is that, although automated processes, which cover a vast range of new industrial techniques, undoubtedly involve a great redeployment of the labour force, very largely centring round leisure pursuits, amongst other things, the total number of man hours worked does not necessarily drop as a result of the introduction of these processes.
This does not in the least invalidate any one of the arguments put forward on either side about the importance of leisure. I assure the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. W. T. Rodgers) that there is no danger at all on this side of the Chamber—and I should have thought on the other side—of allowing puritanical approaches to leisure to interfere with our policy. It was, in fact, a Conservative leader who said that the two great civilisers of mankind were increased means and increased leisure. Lest anyone should attack my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) in his absence, let me say at once that that was said on 3rd April, 1872, by Mr. Benjamin Disraeli, and it has been the philosophy of the party—which has never been a puritanical party—ever since.
In actual practice, we are in the presence of a very greatly intensified use of leisure—and this across the whole spectrum of recreational activity, from dancing to Bach to physical sports. The people of this country, far from suffering from "spectatoritis", are year by year spending their leisure hours with far greater intensity and far greater intelligence, though, of course, at a good deal more expense, in a whole variety of new and more exciting ways. That was my hon. Friend's object when he enumerated, as I would like to have done, some of the activities involved. I did not think that he deserved the rebuke of an hon. Member opposite. It is precisely because we have been studying the social tendencies of the last ten years that we have been able to initiate a new period of local authority and governmental interest in the subject; and that we have been able to achieve what I hope I shall be able to show the Committee is a considerable advance.
We are also in the presence of the fact that recreation in the age of automation is becoming a major industry. One sport that has recurred like a theme on many of the speeches, but it is only a mark of the way in which physical sport is developing and broadening its scope, is dinghy sailing. If, instead of the 13,000 people who ten years ago sailed of an afternoon, 250,000 sail, a new industry is born. That has gone on over the whole range of culture, reading and the arts and physical sports and right across the social spectrum.
The result is that this large new industry that has developed is very largely self-financing, but the question arises exactly of how to finance it, what part the Government or local authorities ought to play in it, what organisation ought to be used to implement the policy, and what policy in the end should be pursued within the organisation.
It does not follow, of course, that if we simply increase Government expenditure on these things without doing it intelligently and purposively, we increase facilities at all. Let us take as an example the sum of money made available for the Olympics. I do not for a moment argue whether that particular sum of money was correct or not. It was, as my hon. Friend reminded the Committee, the first major contribution


a Government has made. It was part of the much larger appeal for £170,000 from industry and other generous donors.
What has to be guarded against if the Government are to subsidise individual activities, however praiseworthy, instead of taking them over—which is, I think, the common view expressed on both sides of the Committee—is to make sure that in any given case, and this was a particularly good case in point, we do not dry up the outside sources in proportion as we supply from Government sources. This becomes more than ever important when, as now, we are committed on both sides to spend no less than 41 per cent. of our gross national product through rates and taxes. It is not some great fundamental difference between the parties, but simply a question of the best approach to a difficult problem.
That brings me—I am afraid that I am rather foreshortening my remarks—to the organisational problem raised by the hon. Members for Huddersfield, East and Small Heath. Should we have a sports development council? Should we have a senior Cabinet Minister or a junior Cabinet Minister—or anybody—to coordinate? Should he be whole time, or should he have other occupations? These are not easy questions, but I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I spend a minute or two on them.
To begin with, I must at once say that I was always attracted to the sports development council. I had experience as Lord President with other bodies like the U.G.C. and the research councils which are administered in the kind of way that the Wolfenden Committee originally suggested for such a council. But a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since that suggestion was originally made, and I think that if hon. Members opposite pursue the matter they will find, for instance, that the C.C.P.R. which originally sponsored the suggestion has, like myself, been rather steadily moving away from it, after having been initially attracted by it. Of course, the financial problem was the original reason why the Government rejected it. It is not altogether attractive as an administrative device to set up a body to grant aid to other bodies which by their nature are mainly supported by public funds, local or central. This is a bad administrative device, although I would

agree that there are certain exceptional cases where this is done. But much more important is the absence of real function for such a sports development council. At bottom one cannot divorce the youth service from the educational service and one cannot divorce sport in education from education.
When we come to the question which I think is central to the whole of this problem—namely the supply of space, facilities and lard for recreation by adults—one cannot really divorce this from the whole question of town and country planning. What we have left is very little more than a fifth wheel to a coach. However, even then I was not myself against the proposal in its entirety. I am not saying that something might not evolve, but I can only tell hon. Members opposite what my own experience has been.
Originally, when I received these responsibilities from my right hon. Friend I intended to create an advisory council, advising me n my co-ordinating functions. which would have been in substance a sports development council without some of the objections raised against it. But when I came to try to appoint such a body I was faced with the following dilemma. In order to carry out the work which one has to carry out as a coordinator between the local authorities, the numerous Government Departments and the voluntary bodies, one must have access to the composite bodies, the C.C.P.R., the National Playing Fields Association, the Scottish Council for Physical Recreation and the British Olympic Association.
Either a sports development council is the same as those bodies, in which case it is really superfluous, or else it is different from those bodies, in which case it is really objectionable. One cannot divorce oneself from direct access to the bodies whose co-operation one really needs. There are no fewer than 300 governing bodies of sport in this country, and the sports development council would have to be representative of them. But how could it be representative of them unless it were to supersede the C.C.P.R. and the Scottish equivalent?
I do not want to be dogmatic about this. All I am saying is that the more I have examined this problem, the more


certain I have been that, at any rate at this stage, we have been right, for purely pragmatic and administrative reasons, to go ahead with a partnership seeking by a small central organisation to co-ordinate the voluntary bodies, the local authorities, the local education authorities and the Government Departments into a cohesive team. As time has gone on I have become more conscious of the fact that we have largely won the confidence of the bodies with which we have been dealing.
I would say only this about the question of a senior Cabinet Minister. I asked the bodies if they would prefer one, and they said they would. But to think that in modern administrative conditions we are going to have a senior Cabinet Minister, in any Government of whatever political complexion, concerned solely with leisure is to delude oneself. Either one is going to have a senior Cabinet Minister with a lot of other responsibilities of one sort or another—because the moment a Prime Minister sees that there is a Cabinet Minister without a large Department under him. hon. Members would be surprised how much work he is given—or else one is going to deal with a Minister of State, a second-tier figure attached to one of the great Departments. I mention this not out of any sense of controversy but simply to say what my own experience has been in this matter.
We have developed very quickly both on the arts and on the sports sides. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath was wrong in saying that this White Paper covered every kind of activity other than sport. This White Paper from which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State quoted, as the Appendix makes clear, was the result of my statement in another place in May last year. It was, in fact, one of the fruits of the function of coordination that the expenditure on sport and physical recreation should be isolated from other topics. The Appendix to the White Paper to which my hon. Friend referred was the outcome of that promise.
Expenditure on the arts has risen from £3 million in 1951 to £13½ million. Of course, this is only a very small

part of the story. I wish I had time to develop the whole field of museums, entertainments, adult education by local authorities and central authorities, and educational broadcasting, all of which have enlarged the spectrum of culture and recreation in leisure in this country almost beyond recognition. If there had been time I would have liked to have given the Committee a much fuller account of that. In the meantime, on the narrower issue of sport we have pursued what I might call an eight-point policy—first, a more liberal policy of grants and capital expenditure to amateur sports clubs; second, that these grants should be available to single-purpose and not, as before, only to multi-purpose bodies. We have given increased grants to the governing bodies of sport both for administration—if I may say so to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—and for coaching.
We have increased and are increasing our grants to the composite bodies—to the English and Scottish Councils for Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association. We have liberalised our loan policy to local authorities. For instance, the amount has increased in 1964–65 to £20 million from £7½ million in 1959–60. We have started giving assistance to teams competing abroad, of which the Olympic team is by far the largest at the moment, but slowly we are approaching the question of other teams competing abroad.
We are undertaking the very thing which has been asked for in so many speeches, namely, an attempt to provide regional facilities by the co-operation of local authorities and composite bodies on the initiative of the central Government. We hope to have a whole series of sports development councils on a local basis spreading all over the country. Many of the things which have been called for are being undertaken by one body or another. There are Bisham Abbey, Lilleshall and Plas-y-Brenin under the C.C.P.R., and Glenmore Lodge and Inverclyde under the Scottish Council for Physical Recreation. Crystal Palace is another example of the same thing, with Olympic swimming facilities under the L.C.C.
I should like again to thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East for introducing this wide and important


subject and to say how much I have enjoyed taking part in the debate. I hope that the few rather disjointed remarks that I have been able to make in the short time available have been of some assistance to the Committee.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again—[Mr. I. Fraser]—put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WELSH SHIPPING AGENCY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: Mr. David Webster (Weston-super Mare) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) wish to speak to the Question?

Sir Frank Soskice: Later, Mr. Speaker, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye.

Mr. Webster: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day three months".
I wish to express my deepest opposition to the Bill. I object to the Bill for a large number of reasons. Perhaps I can first set them out as briefly as possible and then elaborate on them. The Bill would ruin the economy of Weston-super-Mare and Clevedon and other communities on the north lateral of Somerset. I object to the manner of presentation of the Bill. I consider that it would be a disadvantage to the Port of Bristol and other Bristol Channel ports, and that it would create an imbalance in the national docks structure of the country. Finally, I believe that the financial provisions, or calculations or estimates are inadequate and insufficient. This is a rather ambitious selection of reasons for opposing the Bill, which has been put down as Private Business.
May I, first, refer to my constituency. I have no reluctance whatever about

speaking on a constituency matter. I think that I have shown in the short title to my objections, if I may so put it, that my complaint against the Bill is very wide and deep indeed. Therefore, I have no reluctance in going in detail into the afflictions which would result from the Bill in my constituency. Much as I stand for the amenities in Somerset, this is not simply a matter of protecting amenities such as trees in various attractive parts of Somerset. The matter goes very much deeper than that.
We are considering here one of the most desirable coastlines in the whole of England If anyone doubted that, he could have seen this weekend thousands of motor cars going to this part of the country. It has two towns which make most of their living out of being seaside resorts and giving pleasure to a wide range of people. That is illustrated by the number of hon. Members who have had the kindness to attend this debate. This is not simply a constituency matter between my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Sir T. Leather) and myself.
My constituency, Weston-super-Mare, is the major seaside resort on the north side of south-west England. Places like Clevedon, Sand Bay, Brean and Berrow possess amenities on which the economy of my constituency is based. That is the first thing that I should like to stress. It is not simply a case of cutting down a few trees or upsetting amenities to a certain extent. We are here dealing with the livelihood of thousands of people in my constituency. This is the best reason that I know why a constituency member should speak up strongly on this subject.
This is an area of wide renown. It is one of the principal holiday areas. A very considerable element of the population of Weston consists of people who went there on their holidays many years ago and were so delighted with their experiences that they made it their home. This is a strong reason why people in many other parts of the country should wish to protect the amenities and beauty of this area so that in time they may go to live there.
Another consideration is health and the fact that there are many charities in Birmingham and the Midlands which have retirement homes in Weston. They


have written to the town clerk of the borough expressing the deepest concern about the future of their investment in the borough. Also, a new institution for the blind is to be opened very shortly in Weston. The opening will be graced by the presence of Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra.
This shows clearly that this is not simply a selfish desire to prevent progress. It is a desire to preserve the amenities, the way of life and the economy of the area and those things which many people up and down the country cherish in their old age and periods of infirmity. These are very strong reasons why the House should not give a Second Reading to the Bill without the most serious thought.
Even if this were only a constituency problem, I should still be very proud to raise it and to try to resist the Bill, because I consider that one of the functions of this House is to repel the encroachments of what I shall for politeness call "the invisible man". Many people in my constituency have been worried about the Bill. It comes from a source remote from themselves and it will have a devastating effect on the economy and decencies of the area. I will explain later why the word "decencies" has been chosen with the greatest care. It is our function in this House to repel the "invisible man" when he seeks to spoil large parts of the country. We hold this task in trust for our constituencies, and we are very proud to discharge it.
I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply to the points which are made in the debate. I hope that he will do so in time for us to say what we think of any assurances that he may give. I thank him for his courtesy in visiting the area this weekend, so that he could see the problem for himself. I know that he is a greatly overworked Minister, and I pay tribute to him for having the goodness to see the problem in the area for himself. I warn him, however, that, despite the fact that he has done this, and that he has the most disarming way of dealing with objections to anything that he proposes, he will have to say something very substantial before he satisfies us.
I had the great pleasure of serving with my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary

Secretary on the Harbours Bill, which brought into effect the National Ports Council. I appreciated very much the great wisdom and sagacity which he showed in piloting through Committee a Bill which, in parts, was very difficult and contentious. In certain cases he made considerable concessions. I hope that he is in a concessionary mood this evening and that he will tell us something really substantial and give us time to consider it fully.
It would be wrong for my hon. and gallant Friend to use the argument that it would be bad to throw out the Bill, as I should like to do, because this is the first Measure due to be put to the National Ports Council. That would be about the worst argument possible. If the Bill is worthy of going to the Council, we should send it there. My submission is that the Bill is not worthy of being sent to the Council and is not worthy of consideration by this House. When we have a good Measure to send to the Council, we can send it there.
It is wrong to say that we set up machinery like the National Ports Council so that there may be a body to vet these matters. It is the duty of the House of Commons, and a duty which nobody here will shirk, thoroughly to examine these matters in principle before allowing them to go any further. It is not only our duty to our constituents, but it is also our duty to the national purse, because a very considerable amount of money is involved here. All of us in the House tonight are here because we believe in our Parliamentary institutions. That is a very good reason why we should give the Bill the most thorough scrutiny and not let it pass till we are thoroughly satisfied that the damage which we fear will not, in fact, materialise.
Now to come to the technical matters of my objection. The jetty will be built into the Bristol Deep from the Spencer Works in the constituency of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and will travel for about 4½ miles right across the fairly shallow water which is mostly over sub-strata of mud. Then it will come within a mile of Portishead and half way across what is known as the Bristol Deep, a channel which is, I think, slightly less than one mile across; my understanding is that it is 10 fathoms deep.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North has considerable objection to this jetty going right across. I think that every one of us has a different kind of objection from the objection which I shall raise. My hon. Friend's objection is because of what he fears will happen to Portishead. What I am worried about is what is to happen farther down the river. We are here dealing with a river with a very fast tidal flow and with a very high rise and fall in the tide; the rise and fall is between 40 ft. and 50 ft. in the spring tides; and there is a current of between seven and eight miles an hour—and I say miles an hour and not knots—during the spring. The only bigger tide in the world, I understand, is the tidal flow in Fundy Bay.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North, with his wide knowledge of Canadian tides, could give us a graphic description of the power and force and of the rise and fall of the tide in Fundy Bay. I have seen it, when I was in Canada 20 years ago, when I was learning to fly. I think that a better illustration would be to go to the top of Mont de St. Michel and watch the tide come in along the Breton coast with a force and power which would knock a man over in no time.
There are three possible things which the steel company has done nothing whatever to explore—or, certainly, if it has it has kept its findings to itself; it has done nothing whatever to explain this to the towns up and down the Somerset littoral, to show them that their fears are unfounded. What will happen if these piers are built? These are heavy things, though not solid structures, which will hold a vessel the size of the "Queen Elizabeth" or the "Queen Mary". There will be gaps between the piers which will be piers as of a bridge. What will happen? What will happen, for instance, if these piers cause turbulence and the highly fluid sand or mud collects underneath the piers, and becomes a bank eventually over a number of years? Of course, it will not happen overnight. The result will be that the Bristol Deep, seven miles across at present and 10 fathoms deep, will have a tide of higher velocity flowing through.
What consideration has been given to the effect of this power and force of the tide in the Bristol Deep? It would scour out the whole of that channel with effects

which we cannot foretell. Remember, we are considering what is to happen with vessels the size of the "Queen Elizabeth" and the "Queen Mary", which, I think, would be permitted to turn in this channel and tide only during the two peak times of the tide each day. There are two tides each clay, I appreciate that. This will make it more difficult for the other vessels which are already using the Port of Bristol to get through, and we think that that is a considerable reason why we should be against the introduction of the Bill.
This, in my opinion, is the worst possibility which can be urged against the jetty if it were to be built. The Bill is so inadequately prepared that no one really knows whether or not these fears and doubts are true. I am not against progress. I was as much as any a supporter of my hon. and gallant Friend during the passage of the Harbours Bill, but I want to make sure that this is progress and not obstruction. If this worst possibility does not come to fruition—and I fully accept that it is more probable than not that it will not come to fruition—we can still say that no research has been made about it, and that is my objection, because there is bound to be some change in the current, there is bound, in my submission, to be some effect, like the venturi effect, upon the primary current which goes up and down the Bristol Deep, and we in Weston cannot tell what effect it will have upon Weston and Cleveland if the current should be deflected.
If this were to occur the net result would be substantial. The economy of my constituents would be completely ruined. It is based upon the tourist trade of a seaside resort, and this is a place where people retire because of that beach and because of those amenities, and if the beach were to be gouged out by the primary current there would be the ruination of the whole of my constituency. I can think of few better reasons for opposing a Bill of this nature.
Again, I would stress that the promoters of the Bill have done it by stealth, not by consultation and not in co-operation. It is the duty of hon. Members, the duty of one and all of us, to protect our constituencies against this type of treatment. Among other reasons this is a reason—the manner of its presentation—for asking the promoters to take the Bill back


again, and not to treat our constituents or the House in this way, which I consider to be not above reproach.
Another thing I should like to know is what is to be the result on the secondary currents—not the primary current which goes through the main Bristol Deep and out into the sea, but the secondary currents which come in with swirling force? The reason we want to know about this is that two or three years ago my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Housing and Local Government—I am glad to see him here—opened, and did so extremely well, a drainage pumping station in Weston. This pumping station is at the south side of Weston and pumps effluent to a considerable distance out into the main channel. I think that the text used by the parson was, "Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy waterspouts". Anyhow, the fact that my hon. Friend blessed the occasion with his presence showed that the Ministry approves this method, and I think that the Ministry was satisfied that the sewage would be properly macerated by the further action of the deep waters of the Bristol Channel.
When this was done, at considerable expense, the Borough of Weston had a model built. The idea was to see what exactly would be the result of pumping untreated sewage into the middle of the Bristol Channel. The borough was satisfied that no damage would be done. We had a model built. That is more than Richard Thomas and Baldwins can do. It has done nothing to satisfy our doubts about this very grave problem, and it is this lack of courtesy and lack of cooperation which this House should stop straightaway.
If the secondary current were deflected, this sewage might come back on to the beach of Weston-super-Mare. During the last two months we have had experience enough of the type of illness that can occur through lack of cleanliness and if this occurred, and we had that type of publicity in Weston-super-Mare, it would ruin the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
I have submitted these reasons as purely constituency points in urging that the Bill should be rejected unless something can be done radically to alter its

character and to ensure that people who live in Weston, who come there on holiday, who seek to retire there, or who are sent there to recuperate in hospitals after serious illness, should not have their interests damaged.
I have mentioned the manner of the proposal. I deplore it most deeply. In the opinion of the officials and councillors who represent Weston-super-Mare it has been done by stealth and not by consultation. I believe that when these mighty and powerful bodies are entrusted with a vast amount of the taxpayer's money they might at least have the courtesy, when they run the risk of ruining the economy of a population of 60,000, to say, "This is what we propose to do. Will you care to give us your views on the subject?" But no, it was done by stealth.
I do not believe that there was any direct communication about it. There was certainly no invitation to meet them. There was not the slightest attempt to build a model and to see whether these doubts and fears were groundless, or could be allayed. This is the "invisible man" again, and it is the duty of the House of Commons to protect our citizens against him.
It is said that this is a matter which requires speed and urgency. If so, why did they not think of this a year ago and not wait until this late stage to become suddenly aware of the fact that if Richard Thomas and Baldwins, at the Spencer Works, is to exist in this modern age of the super-carrier it must have a big jetty to accommodate large vessels? Did the company not think about this when the place was built? Apparently it was an afterthought.
This business of rushing to the House of Commons and saying that this is a matter requiring attention with the greatest speed and urgency shows that there was either a lack of forethought, or that the people concerned are being disingenuous and are trying to rush things on our constituents. Either way, it does not reflect with advantage on those who ask us to pass a Bill of this kind. It suggests to me that the Bill should be put back and thoroughly reconsidered and the matter brought before the House again.
The postscript of the statement made on the Bill states that:
In view of the admitted urgency of the problem it is submitted that the Bill should be given a Second Reading and that the objections of petitioners be inquired into by a Select Committee.
It is very nice of the promotors to think of that at the last possible moment in the dying weeks of a Parliament. Why should they not have consulted the petitioners before and saved a great deal of public money by satisfying the petitioners on these points? They should come back to the House when they have made their consultations, got their facts right, and given due consideration to all the points and the long-term economies involved in this project.
I turn now to the question of the Port of Bristol. Although I do not have the honour to represent Bristol, I am sure that nobody would accuse me of being an enemy of the Port of Bristol Authority. On many occasions in the past I have wearied the House in making pleas for the Authority on the question of the Portbury project and on what the Lord Rochdale Report had to say about the Upper Severn Authority. I hope that I am a good friend of the Port of Bristol, but if the Authority thinks only of the fees that it would obtain if the end of the jetty were in Bristol water, it is making quite a wrong assessment of any benefits which would redound to the Port of Bristol from this scheme. It would not be the first time in the history of this country that the Port of Bristol had decided that the immediate financial benefit was better and more important than a long-term judgment.

Mr. Stan Awbery: The hon. Member will be aware that no one in Bristol has expressed an opinion in favour of the jetty because of the financial circumstances.

Mr. Webster: I am grateful to the hon. Member. If the end of the jetty was in Bristol Deep the Bristol Port Authority would receive the dues. It has been suggested to me that the Port of Bristol would back this project financially. I will withdraw if that is not correct. I would remind hon. Members, however, that when, 130 years ago, Isambard Kingdom Brunei went to Bristol and made a far-sighted proposal for the

modernisation of the floating docks there it was turned down on economic and financial grounds rather than on operational considerations. I speak as an unbiased Scotsman on this subject, but anybody who knows Bristol knows that as a result it lost ground to Liverpool and ceased to be our major port on the West Coast. Therefore, if the suggestion made to me were true, it would not be the first time that a short-term financial consideration had been preferred to long-term benefit
I am very much at sea in these matters, but my view is that if the end of the jetty comes into the centre of the Bristol Deep, which is 10 fathoms down, the whole of the main fairway, only a mile across, into the Port of Bristol would be cut nearly in half. The jetty can be used only during the two peak hours of the tide. During that time vessels of the size of the "Queen Elizabeth" would be swinging across the Bristol Deep and obstructing the passage into the Port of Bristol. This is my argument and I have submitted to my hon. and gallant Friend that Bristol needs the Portbury project for its development.
This is a most imaginative and far-reaching project. We should be proud that an imaginative Port of Bristol Authority has put forward a project which, to use a road transport analogy, is rather like a C licence-user type of dock where an oil refinery and a smelting company will have their own vessels coming into their own ports. Presumably, like the super ore carriers which will use the jetty in the Bristol Deeps, these vessels too will be very large. They will come into Portbury and will take up a great deal of space in the fairway which will be obstructed by the jetty and by the turning of vessels of their own size.
Lord Rochdale's Committee turned down the Portbury project. All hon. Members representing Bristol have pressed hard that the project should be accepted so that these imaginative plans can go ahead and so that, with Bristol in the forefront, the south-west of England shall have dock facilities unrivalled in any other part of the country. I believe that these are important factors.
This proposal was turned down by the Rochdale Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has undertaken to reconsider that


decision and there is a fascinating article in The Times on the Port of Bristol which tends to question the Portbury project. Those of us who have the interests of Bristol at heart wonder how the Port of Bristol would benefit from having this jetty right across the middle of the fairway.

Mr. Awbery: I remind the hon. Gentle man again that Bristol did not ask for the jetty. The suggestion came from the steel company.

Mr. Webster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. I am saying that I hope that, although my hon. Friend has not the power to withdraw the Bill, because he did not promote it—although we know that he had something to do with it somewhere—he will have it taken back for reconsideration of the site of the jetty. If it is in the Bristol deeps, the jetty will frustrate the development of the port not just for 130 years, as did the decision of the then city fathers that they could not afford to build a new floating dock, but for ever.
It will stultify the progress and development of Bristol if this Bill is rushed through the House. It is a matter deserving the deepest consideration. That is another reason why we should consider it most carefully—not necessarily leisurely. I do not want to stand in the way of progress, but there are other places where the jetty could go and where it would not have the effect I have described on my constituency or of gouging out the Channel and making it deeper and more difficult to navigate. Nor would it have an effect, sited elsewhere, on the primary currents of the north coast of Somerset or on the secondary currents which bring the drainage back.
Perhaps it could be sited at the Newport Deep, or somewhere else. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who cannot be here for reasons which the House will appreciate, has told me that the British Docks Board is considering the prospect of a central port of entry, a central jetty, in South Wales. Surely, in all these contexts, it would be wrong for us prematurely to shove the Bill through before there has been full consideration of all these very serious matters.
The Port of Bristol is to be complementary with South Wales ports. Bristol is an importing centre and the South Wales ports exporting centres. If Bristol port development is blocked, then imbalance will be created in the area and the development of the South Wales and south-western sections of the docks will be stultified. If that happens, what of the efforts of the Rochdale Committee to get a modern docks complex, well balanced between the various requirements of the country?
In addition, we know that there will soon be overstrain in the South-East. There is already too much population in too little space. If we prevent the development of Bristol and South Wales Ports, more population, more goods and more commerce will go to the Port of London, making the congestion in what Cobbett called the "great wen" even worse and more acute. This is not something which we should allow by the twinkle of an eye.
This is a matter of local significance. It is also of regional significance for Bristol and it is certainly one which could have wider significance for the economic and social development of the country as a whole. One of our functions is to look after the taxpayer's money. This is an aspect of the matter which gives me the greatest concern. We are given an estimate of £18 million. How do we know whether it is accurate? My guess is that the cost would be at least £25 million. I cannot quote anyone directly, but I have heard confirmation of that figure by experts. How was the sum of £18 million estimated? Should we approve it?
We are asked to rely for this financial, commercial and economic estimate on people who built a steelworks, completed within two years ago, and were apparently not even aware of the presence or existence of the super ore carrier. Basil Mavroleon and other shippers have been advocating the super ore carrier and the super oil tanker for years. I do not know whether the people who built this steelworks were pushed into going to that part of Wales or not. If they were, those who pushed them must surely have had ideas that they would need a jetty many miles out into the centre of the Bristol Channel. When people make a blunder of this magnitude and put a steelworks in an area without giving it


proper dock facilities, and then supply us with an estimate of the cost of that jetty, we must consider it carefully and ask more about it.
This is not a matter that we can shove on to a Select Committee or to the Ministry. I laboured on the Estimates Committee for four years and I know what happens when we shove financial and economic responsibility on to a Department. I respect the Ministry's integrity and ability, but this House, if it gives up its right to question matters of the purse, of granting millions of pounds of public funds to any authority that can never again be questioned about its use will be doing something to bring Parliament into disrepute. It will not be carrying out its task.
I have spoken far too long, but this is a matter of very great constituency importance. There are very many reasons why we should ask for the Bill to be taken back and looked at afresh with a view, perhaps, to moving the site of the jetty. There are regional as well as constituency reasons. There could be conomic ruin for many thousands. There are matters of the manner in which the Bill has been brought before the House—a manner not in accord with the best of democratic methods of consultation and discussion with the people involved. Finally, national finance is involved.
For all these reasons, I express my deepest disappointment with the Bill. I hope that it will be taken back and thoroughly redrafted. I hope that that is what my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Stan Awbery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) on the fair and reasonable way in which he put his case against the building of a jetty in the Bristol Channel. We have to consider other matters as well. We shall be importing 7 million tons of ore through the Bristol Channel annually, and 22,000 tons of iron ore are to be discharged every day of the week. Some means has to be arranged for that discharge. Whether it is to be a jetty or a central port is a matter for consideration. I want to criticise the proposal for a jetty and follow up what the hon. Member has said.
I was discussing this matter in the House a fortnight ago, when I said that in certain places jetties were suitable for the larger ships now being constructed so long as there was no port able to accommodate large iron ore carrying ships and large tankers. For instance, a few years ago a jetty was built in Milford Haven and has been admirable for the discharge of oil. Oil discharged there is pumped through tubes to Swansea, which is 60 miles away, and this is a very satisfactory arrangement. But it could not be done very well with iron ore. The circumstances in Milford Haven are also very different from those in the Bristol Channel. At Milford there is deep water and a sheltered haven with very little rise and fall of the tide, and the movement of ships alongside the jetty very slight, certainly not be compared with movement in the Bristol Channel.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said about the difficulties of jetties in the Bristol Channel. Although he has mentioned several, one which he has not mentioned is that the tidal flow in the Channel is about 5 or 6 knots, while the up and down movement of ships when fast to the jetty would be pronounced. The turning of a ship when she had completed discharging would be the most difficult time, because the ship would have to move out into deep water and turn in deep water when light, when she might catch the wind more easily than she would when loaded and when she might find the tide running against her. A fair wind comes up from South Wales, and six days out of ten there is a south-west wind which would make it most difficult to turn the ship, so that she would either have to go down the Channel stern first or turn round, both very difficult operations.
At present, there are deep water channels not only into Bristol but into Newport and. Cardiff further down the Channel. No one knows what would be the effect of a jetty four and a half miles long on tidal flow and on the movement of sand and mud. Instead of washing mud to Weston-super-Mare, it might wash sand, which would make Weston a much better seaside resort. A jetty of this length would be in danger from shipping in the Channel. A ship colliding with a jetty, or even a pier reaching to the jetty,


might put the jetty out of commission for many months. There is also a danger to shipping. These are among the factors which will have to be considered by the engineers.
I know that this is a permissive Bill and that it does not say that a jetty must be constructed. It simply gives power to the steel company to construct the jetty. Calculations will have to be made and a scheme will have to be submitted to the Minister, who will then be responsible for deciding whether the jetty should be built. In this way, the buck will be passed to the Minister instead of to a committee.
I want to go further than the Bill proposes. I want the committee to consider the building of jetties at Newport or Cardiff, or Port Talbot, and whether they would be necessary to the steel industry and for the benefit of the country.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is not that the very thing which the National Ports Council is considering—the whole question of port facilities for South Wales and how it will best be served?

Mr. Awbery: I was about to point out that it is not a case of each port asking for the construction of a jetty for the importing of oil. Each port wants to become the central port for importation. I understand from the Press that Cardiff is to spend £50,000 on having an agency go into the question of whether Cardiff could be made the central iron ore importing port. Barry, next door, cannot afford to spend £50,000 to have a firm going into such questions, and nor can Port Talbot.
Why cannot the Minister arrange for a committee, representing all the ports in the Bristol Channel, and perhaps outside ports, to decide whether a jetty is necessary, or one port is necessary? Could not such a committee make its recommendations to the Minister?

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I am interested in this proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) to form a committee to inquire into this matter. However, I am a little doubtful about the possibility of a committee coming to any decision. I have in my hand a report, which my hon. Friend knows about, of the Severn Barrage Committee,

which was set up in 1933 and of which I was a member from 1936 to about 1946. In 1945 it had not come to any conclusions, or, at least, no work had started on any proposed Severn Barrage. I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue this idea of having a committee. I would rather leave it to the judgment of the Minister.

Mr. Awbery: I understand that a committee is to be set up to go into the problem. Instead of each port advocating its own case to the Minister, it could put its evidence to the committee and the Minister would be able to make a decision on the basis of the recommendations of such a committee. Cardiff, Newport, Barry and Port Talbot are all prepared to spend money on pushing their own arguments for being the importing port. I have my own personal opinion about which is best, but I shall not express it tonight. This is a matter to be considered by a joint committee.
Although I shall vote for the Bill, because it is permissive and does not tie us down to anything except a further inquiry, what we want is a further inquiry by the engineers about what it is best to do—

Sir Edwin Leather: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that if he votes for the Bill and it goes forward a further inquiry is precisely what he will not get? He will get the Bill, full stop. That is the whole object of the Bill.

Mr. Awbery: I must misunderstand the Bill. When the Bill is passed, it will permit a committee to prepared a scheme which ultimately will be submitted to the Minister for his approval. What I am saying is that a committee should go into all the facts so that when its report is made we shall have an opportunity to oppose or accept its recommendations.
The building of the jetty might affect amenities. Even the engineers who would construct the jetty cannot tell us before hand what effect the jetty would have upon the flow of the currents and the opening up of new and the closing of present deep channels. These are hypothetical considerations. If we build a jetty and throw up all the mud on Weston-super-Mare, it will be too


late then to reverse the position. I want the engineers and all who have the ability to give great consideration to this problem.
The main problem is to decide whether to develop enough jetties or to develop a port. If we develop jetties, we shall then have to construct a dry dock large enough to take all the ships, otherwise there would be no dry dock to undertake underwater repairs. I suggest that the committee should consider the idea of one central port in South Wales—I would agree with whichever was chosen—where the ore can be distributed to the two works.

Sir William Robson Brown: It is not feasible, economic or practicable to choose one of the South Wales ports for the importation and discharge of all the ore for all the steel companies. One steel company would benefit and all the rest would be handicapped in perpetuity. Railway carriage from Cardiff to the new works at Newport or from Cardiff to Port Talbot would be out of the question and would put the company at a disadvantage.

Mr. Awbery: If we had one central port, Cardiff or Barry, the two steelworks would be thirty miles each side—thirty railes East and thirty miles West. The railway carriage from the central port would be thirty miles to each of the steelworks. I do not see any trouble in that. Freightage of ore to the steelworks would pay for the upkeep of the jetties. If we had one jetty in Newport to carry the iron ore from Newport to Port Talbot, 60 miles, we would soon have to have another jetty at Port Talbot. We should have the same difficulties and obstacles at Port Talbot as in Newport. Then Cardiff would come along saying, "We want a jetty for steelworks in Cardiff". Then, when we had built the jetties, we should have to construct docks for the larger ships coming in with general cargo and construct a ship-repairing yard to repair the ships bringing in the oil and iron ore.
I suggest that the committee should give consideration not only to this four-and-a-half mile long jetty, but to whether one jetty or three jetties are necessary. If they are, then let us construct the jetties, but I think it will be found that it is far better to reconstruct one of our ports and build a large modern port like that which, as the hon. Member for

Weston-super-Mare said, Bristol is building.
A few years ago Bristol prepared a scheme at Portbury, bought the land, and prepared its plans for an entrance to a dock 1,400 ft. long by 140 ft. wide. There is not an entrance in South Wales larger than 100 ft. It is preparing that dock for the future. When Portbury is constructed, it will not be a port for iron ore in the Bristol Channel. It would be absurd to consider discharging iron ore in Portbury and sending it to the steelworks. We must have a jetty or port in the Bristol Channel, and I suggest that a committee should give serious consideration to this problem.
I have written to Lord Rochdale's Committee and expressed my opinion as to what should be done. I have had a reply from the Committee, but it wants a great deal of information that no one but an experienced engineer can give. I cannot tell it what the cost of these proposals would be or give it the engineering information which is required. A committee set up by the Minister for this purpose could do that. It would have the weight of the Minister behind it, be financed by I the Minister, and we should get an unbiased report whether it would be better to lave a jetty or a port.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I respect the motives behind the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), who defended a constituency interest with great eloquence and after a great deal of study. We have just heard a speech from the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), from which, as I understand it, he favours a jetty or facilities for unloading large ore carriers somewhere in the Bristol Channel. I think that he would like this to be at Cardiff rather than anywhere else, whereas my hon. Friend, when he opposed the Bill, did not in fact disclose where he would have it but was determined that it should not be where it is proposed in the Bill.
I owe my hon. Friend some explanation as to how I became interested in the Bill. I approach it from a very different point of view, perhaps more remote, and I am certainly not concerned to the same extent as my hon. Friend with the amenities; nevertheless I think it is a point


of view which is legitimate, quite apart from the argument in which we are involved. It so happens that I am a director of a firm which for some time has been engaged in trying to bring off a major export deal to South America—to Brazil—and the difficulty was the Brazilian payments, which anyone with dealings recently in that part of the world will know are adverse from our point of view. It was difficult to get payment for something that might have amounted to an export of £7 million or more to this country. The solution might well lie in the importation of Brazilian iron ore, which, incidentally, is the cheapest on the market in the world. This may prove difficult, if not impossible, for the single reason that freight charges on our ore carriers from Brazil are so high and uncompetitive that it may make it impossible and certainly render it extremely difficult.
This was my introduction to the problem of freight charges and it caused me to take an interest in this Bill. May I quote one figure to illustrate what I mean. The Port of Newport, indeed Bristol as a whole, as I understand it, can take ore carriers up to 23,000 tons, and on a ship of that nature there is a freight charge of 20s. per ton for ore. If it were possible to use a ship of 60,000 tons—and such a ship is being used by our competitors—the charge per ton would be reduced to 14s. It surely would be a good thing from the point of view of the economy as a whole and trade far removed from the steel industry, such as the deal in which I and the company to which I belong was engaged if these rather inflated freight charges by world standards could be reduced.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: I am aware of the difficulty in which the Handley-Page Company finds itself, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not solely a question of the size of the carriers which results in a price of 60s. a ton for the carrying of Itabira iron-ore from Vittoria instead of a 30s. rate freight? It is a question of disastrous long-term charter arrangements which Bisc (Ore) Ltd. have got into. Is he aware that with British carriers Bisc (Ore) Ltd. recently contracted to supply the German steel industry with iron-ore from Itabira at 30s. a ton freight, while the

same British ore carriers are charging 60s. a ton freight to British companies?

Mr. Hastings: The hon. Gentleman is well informed and I have noted the figures which he has quoted. I shall look them up again in HANSARD. I submit to him, as I think he himself implied, that the size of the ore carrier is a relevant factor—I think I should be out of order if I allowed myself to be led into an interesting discussion which the hon. Gentleman predicates—and accounts for a substantial part of these high charges for freight. I would welcome any Measure likely to bring down these charges overall and make our steel industry even more competitive than it is already. I believe that this Bill is designed to do that in a particular sector. Therefore, I believe it worthy of consideration by the House and I hope that it will go through.
As I understand it, there are four alternatives. There is the Port of Newport, where the authority is neither able nor willing to undertake the alterations which would be necessary to allow in ships of this size. Secondly, there is Port Talbot. Legislation was incorporated in the British Transport Docks Measure which has gone through the House in connection with that. Thirdly, there is this question of the Bristol Deep. My hon. Friend expressed some doubt about the amount of capital cost—£18 million or £20 million,—but at least the exercise has been done on the advice of first-class consultants, and £18 million was the figure put forward. I understand that the position of the jetty and the scheme has been specifically recommended by Dr. Allen of D.S.I.R., and that is no light matter.
The fourth alternative, Cardiff, has been raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, Central. If we discount Newport and consider only the other three, to me Cardiff seems by far the worst bet. I understand that the British Transport Docks Board at Cardiff opposed it and only the Cardiff Corporation—and perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who unfortunately is unable to be present to take part in this debate—favour the site at Cardiff. A figure of £18 million or £20 million may or may not be correct in respect of Bristol Deep. But we have not the faintest idea what would be the


cost of a new harbour which I understand would be necessary at Cardiff if these ships are to be taken there.

Mr. Awbery: Surely we could get the estimated cost of a new harbour or port in the same way as it is possible to get the cost of a jetty.

Mr. Hastings: I am saying that I have seen no figures. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has, and if so I am sure that he will tell the House the cost of a new harbour at Cardiff. My hon. Friend questioned the figure of £18 million put forward in respect of the jetty which we are discussing. The consultants may be right, but we do not have the cost for Cardiff.

Mr. O'Malley: Is the hon. Member aware that perhaps he is attaching rather greater importance to the question of port facilities in the case he mentioned than they deserve? As I understand it, the firm which would import the Itabira iron ore in payment for the £7 million worth of aircraft in which the hon. Gentleman's company is concerned could charter foreign shipping at 30s. a ton and the difficulty is that Bisc (Ore) Ltd. is charging 60s.

Mr. Hastings: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who is well aware of an export deal in aircraft which could be of considerable significance to the economy of this country. I am not talking of that. I am trying to discuss the various alternatives, of which this Bill is one. There could be other ways of solving the problems of Handley-Page and Brazil and so forth, but that is not what I am discussing.
To revert to Cardiff specifically, goodness knows I am no expert on steel, but no one would deny that if the Cardiff scheme were adopted it would involve double handling whereas the scheme at Port Talbot or Bristol Deep would not. From the point of view of Spencer Works and Richard Thomas and Baldwin, if the Cardiff alternative were adopted in place of this scheme it would add 5s. a ton to the cost of ore shipped across to the Spencer Works, a most important factor in their costs, as anyone would agree.
It may be that later in the debate we shall hear a plea for British Railways and their real and well-justified attempts

to compete, but even with the most modern ore-carrying trains which are under consideration if not already used on the railways, the capacity would be limited and would not cancel out the difference in cost which I have just indicated. So here we have three alternatives, discounting Newport, of which Cardiff seems to me certainly to be the worst and we know least about it. For Port Talbot enabling legislation has already gone through the House and it would seem only commonsense and economic sense that enabling legislation—as has been pointed out that is all that is being requested tonight—should go forward for Bristol Deep. It is up to the National Docks Council to choose between these alternatives. This perfectly sensible alternative has been deeply considered by the best consultants, and there is no doubt in my mind that it should go forward for consideration on the same basis as Port Talbot.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare—he has had to leave the Chamber—believed that this Bill had been brought to this stage with a certain amount of—the word he used was "stealth". I am not sure that he was really justified in using it. I have done my best to check up, and I understand that as soon as the company concerned knew that there were objections it called a meeting with the Somerset County Council and explained the case. The county council was not satisfied as I can readily under stand. Subsequently there was another meeting on 1st January and 2nd March of this year with the Portishead Council, and again the company tried to explain its position. As a result of that there were a number of objections—

Sir E. Leather: No.

Mr. Hastings: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to put his case, if he is lucky enough, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to catch your eye.
I understand that as a result of the second of these meetings the company concerned went into a study of both dust and noise. It went to Dunkirk, which is perhaps the best comparable installation, and to Colvilles at Glasgow and to Birmingham. An accoustics team from the Imperial College of Science made a study at Dunkirk and the company's own engineers studied the


question of dust. They went into this matter as deeply as they could, and after what seems to me to have been a thorough consultation with the local authorities this the conviction of the company—although it understood the worry expressed by my hon. Friend—that scientifically these difficulties are not likely to occur.
In a matter of five years' time it is likely that we shall be importing into the South, into this country, well over ten million tons of ore instead of the three million to five million which we are considering at the moment. This, as I understand it, would be beyond the capacity of the jetty which we are considering tonight at Bristol Deep and also beyond the capacity of Port Talbot. We have no idea what the capacity of 'the new harbour at Cardiff would be, and we cannot argue about it. But if we take Bristol Deep and Port Talbot, then within five years in all probability we shall have to turn to another alternative to take the extra imports which undoubtedly will come.
The logical and sensible way of doing that would be to implement the second scheme put forward by the two companies. If we began with Bristol Deep we should turn in five years' time to Port Talbot, or vice versa. This is most favoured by the steel companies. They are not unimportant in the matter, and if it is a question of having a port with double handling not under their control or a jetty or port under their control, then it is more efficient and more economic from their point of view to take the latter. Accepting that in five years' time we shall have to stretch the capacity of even these deep water facilities which we are considering tonight, it is a good deal better to begin with one of the steel companies' solutions, either Port Talbot or Bristol Deep, and then move to the other.
Finally, it seems to me that we must make up our minds clearly about what we are legislating for. Let there be no question that we are legislating for some sort of hidden help or subsidy to British Railways. Let there be no question that we are legislating principally for any local interest. Of course that is important. But what is more important is

the future of this industry, which is basic to the prosperity of the country.
I am not discussing miscalculations of the past; they may have occurred and they may not, but I am not in a position to say. But what is certain is that these charges must come down if the industry is to remain competitive, and I submit that in the light of that, a sensible view is to let the Bill go forward for consideration.

8.12 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I think that I can put the points which I should like the House to consider on the Amendment fairly shortly. This is not the Minister's Bill and in a sense it is hardly he who can be taken to task for any shortcomings in its formulation. Nevertheless, the position, I think I understand rightly, is that under the terms of the Bill as it stands—an enabling Bill, as it is frequently described—the works cannot be carried out until the Minister's consent has been given to their being carried out.
Before he gives that consent he will have the advice of the National Ports Council, who will be considering not merely this project but this project against the background of the importation of iron ore into South Wales as a whole. That is a position which offers considerable safeguards to those who have particular anxieties about the form of the Bill. But I must confess that I still do not feel at all happy about the Bill as drafted. My attitude to the Amendment, if it goes to a Division, will depend, very largely—and I think rightly—on what the Minister says in answer to the debate.
It is common ground on both sides of the House that the predominant question is the public interest. Each of us has his constituency interests. I have a very obvious constituency interest in that the people of Newport depend to a considerable extent upon the prosperity of Newport docks. As far as I can, speaking as the Member for Newport, and consistently with the public interest, I should naturally like to see as much of the traffic as possible centred upon the Newport dock, in my constituents' interests. But the question which the House is debating is, how can this importation of iron ore be best


carried out in the national interest? One considers that question against the prevailing consideration that it is obviously much more economical to import ore in these very large iron-ore carriers than in the much smaller carriers which have hitherto been used.
That being the situation, my first anxiety is that I want to be assured by the Minister—I think this is within his province—that alternative schemes will have been fully taken into account before he gives his consent to the use of the powers which the Bill confers. An alternative scheme which I particularly have in mind is that which may emerge—I put this point to the Minister when we were discussing the Transport Commission Bill—as a result of the dredging experiments being carried out by the Transport Commission Dock Board in the vicinity of Newport. The Minister knows the scheme. The experiments which are being carried out may produce—I do not say that they will produce—an alternative scheme which would be both cheaper than the scheme embodied in the Bill and just as effective.
I want therefore to be assured by him, if he is prepared to give me the assurance, that that alternative scheme will be thoroughly taken into account before he authorises the works to be carried out under the Bill. It has not yet been finally formulated or put forward, and in the circumstances there is nothing which at the moment he can consider as a fully detailed scheme, but I hope that he will so adjust the time-table that the Docks Board will be able to arrive at their final conclusions in such a way that that scheme can be fully taken into account. I hope that he will find no difficulty in giving me that assurance.
The second consideration which I should like to put to him turns upon the use to which the jetty is to be put. The Preamble to the Bill recites that what is necessary is
the most economical method of transporting from overseas the large quantities of raw material required
at the Richard Thomas and Baldwins steelworks. That is the basis on which the Bill is introduced. My criticism of its terms is that there is nothing which I can discover in the enabling provisions which limits the use to which the jetty

can be put to the importation of iron ore. As far as the Bill is concerned, it could be used for any importation of which it is physically capable. Equally, there is nothing to prevent it from being used for the export of materials if that should be taken into account by those who operate it.
Speaking, again, as the Member for Newport, and I hope not taking too parochial a view about it—the people of Newport largely depend on Newport docks for their welfare—I hope that the Minister will say that certainly no sanction would be given by him for the exercise of the powers for purposes other than that se: out in the passage which I have read from the Preamble. It should be only for the importation of iron ore, and possibly some similar bulk product such as oil, hat the jetty should be used. I hope that the Minister will assure me and those who are immediately concerned that he will not give his consent to the user of the jetty for any other purpose than that purpose, and specifically that it should not be used for any exporting purpose even if it is physically capable of being so used.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend elaborate on this point? I heard it but did not understand it. If this jetty is established at very great capital cost, why should it be prevented from being used for other purposes for which it is suitable?

Sir F. Soskice: For one important reason—that it is only for this purpose that the Bill is introduced. I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard me read a passage from the Preamble which states that the whole purpose is to secure the most economical transportation from overseas of iron ore. That is the purpose of the Bill, and it seems to me to be wholly unreasonable, if the Bill is introduced for one purpose—and that is in the Preamble, and it is the motivating intention which inspired its introduction—that there should be any question of its being used thereafter for some completely different purpose. I reinforce that conviction by saying that if it is used for the purpose of exportation or importation of other commodities it may have a very serious effect upon the prosperity of the Newport docks which are immediately adjacent to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South East (Mr. Benn) smiles and he may justifiably do so, but besides being I hope a loyal servant of the public I am also the Member for Newport. I say, frankly that the interests of Newport are not necessarily or completely alien to the public interest. It is in the public interest that the citizens of Newport should enjoy well-being, and there are docks which are ready to provide that well-being for them if they are fully and amply used. I add that considerable sums of money have been spent recently in improving the facilities there, and the public interest would not be well served if the facilities which Newport docks are able to afford were not used to the full. I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend that my point of view both looks to the public interest and also looks to something which is closely identifiable with the public interest—the interests of my constituents.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not a fact that discussions have taken place between the company and the Newport Port Authority on this point and that Newport is quite happy on this question of other goods?

Sir F. Soskice: I do not wish to reflect for a moment on those who are responsible for the conduct of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, but I am asking for the highest form of guarantee which I can get—that the Minister should say that unless there is a positive and specific undertaking given to him, or unless there is some provision introduced into the Bill to make it impossible to use the jetty for purposes other than the import of iron ore or cognate products, he will not authorise the user of the power.
I agree that there have been, if I may say so, some rather informal undertakings given. I do not doubt their sincerity. No doubt they are perfectly sincere. But as the highest form of security, I should like to see the Bill amended, if it is given a Second Reading, to limit the user to which it can be put to the purposes which I have indicated. Naturally, if the Minister says that he would not authorise the use of the powers for purposes other than that particular purpose. I should have thought that that was an equally reliable guarantee. I hasten to repeat that I am not for a moment seeking to

throw any doubt upon the bona fides of those who have taken part in the somewhat unofficial conversations which have hitherto been held.
The other point I make is the general engineering one. I ask the Minister again to refuse any consent which he can give until he is satisfied that the various problems which were indicated by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) have been properly explored. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare was trying to alarm me—he may think that I am alarmist by nature—but he very courteously handed to me certain notes which he had received from the experts who had advised him. He called my attention to one matter which particularly concerns Newport. I am most anxious that what he brought to my attention will be fully considered by the National Ports Council and by the Minister himself before he decides whether his consent will be given.
I think that the best way to bring the point to the attention of the National Ports Council and the Minister is to read a short extract from the notes which the hon. Gentleman gave me. I am looking at the matter now from the point of view of the engineering risks which have been previously touched upon by hon. Members, and this is the point which particularly concerns Newport. The expert advice runs—I do not think that this is the ipsissima verba, but this is the effect of it—
There is every reason to believe that the structure would impede the tidal flow over a part of the Channel known as the Welsh Grounds. Increased siltation would occur there, with disturbances in the Newport Deep area and the eventual elimination of the Newport Deep by deposition.
That expresses the anxiety which the hon. Gentleman has inspired in my mind, and I greatly hope that the engineering risk adumbrated in that sentence will be fully taken into account.
There are other engineering risks. I have had put to me by persons who, presumably, are in a position to know that, if one tries to make fast a large ship against a jetty when there is a very heavy tide running and there is a substantial rise and fall, it may be extremely difficult to carry out the operation, and


it may, indeed, involve risk if it is attempted. I do not know whether this has been fully considered, and I hope that before any consent is given, we can be assure that it will be taken into account.
Generally speaking, I should criticise the Bill on this further ground. Again looking at the Preamble, if one asks who is to be the harbour authority, the Bill, not unnaturally perhaps, states that the harbour authority for this jetty is to be what is called the company, that is to say, the Welsh Shipping Agency Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Richard Thomas and Baldwins. The harbour authority, of course, will be the body continually responsible for the conduct of the operations connected with the jetty, both now and in the future. It is, I suppose, the authority which will continue to be associated with it and responsible "for its management.
Is it altogether satisfactory, considering that this is simply one point of import in a whole complex affecting all South Wales, that it should be the company which is the harbour authority? Would it not be more satisfactory, perhaps, if some other outside body such as the docks board were substituted for the company? The advantages of this—I simply throw it out as a suggestion—would be that the harbour authority which had the jetty area under its supervision would also have other areas, for instance, Newport, within its province of responsibility. Therefore, I suggest, it would be in a much better position to take a more global view of this matter and to see that the general interests of South Wales were served as best they can be in the importation of iron ore. Again, I am not for a moment suggesting that this very great company would act other than in what seemed to be the best public interest when acting in its capacity as harbour authority.

Mr. Norman Cole: I am trying to understand this. Surely, all the water in that vicinity is at present in the jurisdiction of one harbour authority or another. I understand that the jetty head itself would be within the jurisdiction of the Port of Bristol, so I do not quite follow why Richard Thomas and Baldwins would be constituted another authority, called the company under the Bill.

Sir F. Sockice: The reason why I make that suggestion arises again from the Preamble. The relevant part of the Preamble is to be found at line 10 on page 2:
And whereas in order to enable the Company to control and protect the said works so far as they are not situate within the port and harbour of Bristol it is expedient that the Company be constituted a harbour authority as in this Act provided".
Thus, there is a kind of joint harbour authority, Bristol and the company, and I was wondering whether it would be a more satisfactory arrangement, so that the general public interest and the wider considerations could be taken into account, if the docks board were the harbour authority for the jetty as a whole. I simply throw it out as a suggestion. From the point of view of my constituents, we should regard it as more satisfactory if we could think that there was, as it were, a wider spread of authority in the harbour board responsible for the jetty.

Dr. Horace King: Is it not true that nothing can be done under the Bill without the consent of the Minister, who himself will be consulting the National Ports Council, which we have recently set up, which will take into account all the wider issues about which my right hon. and learned Friend is now speaking?

Sir F. Soskice: My answer to my hon. Friend is this. What he says is perfectly true, but, sc far as I can see, there is no power to make the docks board the harbour authority unless the terms of the Bill are amended. If the Bill is accepted as it stands, there must be a harbour authority which is either Bristol or the company, and it would not be possible to implement the proposal I am advancing without a substantial change in the terms of the Bill. I am putting forward that proposal simply as a possible way to improve the situation.
Those are the considerations which I put to the House. As I say, my own attitude on the Bill will depend largely on what the Minister is able to say and what assurances he can give. I shall be glad to hear him.

8.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett): I intervene at this stage


without intending any discourtesy to hon. Members who still wish to speak. It has been impressed on me by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Sir E. Leather) that he wishes to be allowed to wind up the case for the Amendment and have the final say to reply to any points which I make in explaining the Government's view. This being so, I thought that it might be convenient if I were now to say what the Government think about the Bill.
The urgent need to improve facilities for shipping iron ore to South Wales was stressed, as the House will remember, in the Rochdale Report, and that view is not challenged, I think. Neither is it seriously contested that this can be achieved only by constructing terminals for giant ore carriers and, as well as that, by minimising the handling costs, when the ore is unloaded and taken to the steel works.
It has been estimated by the promoting company that about 10s. a ton would be saved on the average ocean freight rates if carriers of 65,000 tons or above could be used. The combined capital cost of the projects proposed under the Bill and under the British Transport Docks Bill, which the House has already passed, has been put at about £30 million. If we assume a total import of, say, 200 million tons during the first 20 years after the projects have been completed, the burden of the capital charges will be rather less than 5s. a ton during those 20 years, after which they would end. Moreover, capital charges do not escalate, in contrast to the operating costs, inseparable from double handling, which do escalate.
I have begun with this very brief summary of the economic case for separate deep water terminals for each steel works because there has been some tendency—we have heard it in the speeches today—to deride the whole idea of having separate terminals and to assume that a common terminal must be better. Perhaps it would be better, but that has yet to be proved. The Bill, as has been said, is no more than an enabling Measure to permit the construction of a deep water jetty at which giant ore carriers could discharge ore which is destined for the great steel works at Newport. The Measure, as the House knows, has already been considered in another place, where the arguments for

and against it were exhaustively examined. While allowing the Bill, their Lordships inserted a new Clause, and it is that new Clause which makes it clear beyond doubt that the proposed works may proceed only with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.
My hon. Friends who are backing the Amendment tonight do not wish the case that they have deployed against the Bill to be examined by a Committee of this House. They wish to see it rejected out of hand and hon. Members denied the opportunity of challenging the views of their experts, which they have passed on to us tonight at second hand.
Some play has been made of the fact that an earlier Bill promoted with the same object was withdrawn. I refer to what was known as the Newport Deeps scheme. The reason for abandoning that scheme was twofold. At best, it could have provided for carriers not exceeding 65,000 tons and, even so, subject to some tidal limitations. Yet the tendency for ships to grow in size continues, despite the wishful thinking of those people who are always at hand to tell us that finality has been reached. The second and more serious objection to the Newport Deeps scheme was that further study showed the channel to be unstable. One of the great advantages of the present scheme is that it makes use of a deep water channel known to have been stable since 1774, or so I understand.
As the House knows—it has been repeated in the course of the debate—these two projects by no means exhaust the possibilities open to us to achieve the general purpose of providing modern and efficient ore terminals in the Bristol Channel. They are distinguished, though, from the rest by virtue of having been put forward and backed by the steel companies concerned, and it is for that reason that they are in a more advanced state of planning than are the rival schemes.
I must emphasise again that it is by no means certain that this particular scheme, or indeed the scheme promoted by the Docks Board, will be adopted. It will be the task of the National Ports Council to examine each of the schemes that have been put forward to the best of its ability and" advise the Government on which is most worthy to be accepted. If it is eventually decided to adopt some


entirely different scheme, I have little doubt that the necessary authority would be sought by means of the machinery established under the Harbours Act, rather than by promoting another Private Bill.
Hon. Members may therefore ask how it came about that this Bill was promoted. The reason is the same as that which I gave in the debate on the Docks Board Bill. At the time when the Welsh Shipping Agency project was put forward, we could not be certain that the Harbours Act would reach the Statute Book during the life of the present Parliament. Furthermore, the Harbours Act procedure, although cheaper and more flexible from the point of view of the promoters, is not necessarily any quicker. We estimate that a harbour empowerment Order for a scheme of this nature, which, the House will observe, ' has not commanded the unreserved support of every Member present, might take anything up to a year to get through.
This means that, had we advised the the promoters to proceed under the Harbours Act procedure, they would probably have had to wait until the middle of 1965 for their Order. If, however, it is eventually decided to go forward with this project, it is highly desirable that an earlier start should be made.
That brings me to the question: what will be the consequences if the House agrees to read the Bill a Second time? The answer is that all the objections about which we have heard so much this evening, and about which we shall hear more, unless I am very much mistaken, will be argued before a Private Bill Committee in the normal manner, and if, eventually, the Measure reaches the Statute Book it will enable my right hon. Friend to authorise the work to go forward without delay, should this be so decided, some time before the end of the present year. If, on the other hand, the House of Commons rejects the Bill tonight and if, notwithstanding that, the Government eventually reach the conclusion that a scheme of this nature is unavoidable, the necessary empowerment Order will have to be promoted later this year and will hardly be obtained before the autumn of 1965.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to some of the points which have been made during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member

for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) said that the livelihood of thousands of his constituents was at stake, and we had to listen for some time to learn the reason why. He told us that the first reason was a fear that the régime of the Estuary might be changed. That, of course, is a matter for the experts, and I can only say that my hon. Friend's views are not shared by the leading authorities in the country on these matters. They did not convince the Committee in another place and I think that it will be for a Committee of this House, in due course, to listen to those views under conditions in which the experts can be cross-examined.

Mr. Webster: Will a model be built so that this can be proved or disproved?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I want to comment, first, on the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery). If the régime of the estuary did change, who knows what golden sands lying to the north of this jetty might be magically transferred to the mud of Weston-super-Mare? He suggested that the Port of Bristol would be adversely affected. If so, why has the Port of Bristol Authority not objected or petitioned against the Bill?
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare now asks why there is no model. This, again, is largely a matter for the experts, who can be cross-examined. However, the brief answer is that the suitability of the main channel in and out of the Severn Estuary is not regarded as being in question by any authority of which I know and, therefore, a model is unnecessary from the point of view of the immediate local conditions of the jetty.
On the other hand, if one wanted to investigate the effects on the Estuary as a whole it would be necessary to make a model covering, perhaps, 25 to 30 miles of the length of the Estuary, and I understand that no reasonably sized model could represent the size of the river piles because, on such a scale, they would be microscopic. The experts are confident—and I mean the leading experts—that the régime would not be affected. My experience of these experts is that they have a habit of being right.
It might assist if I place an analogy before hon. Members. I remember when


we decided on an artificial harbour for the great invasion operation. Something which worried us more than anything else was whether the whole thing would silt up within a fortnight. We asked the Prime Minister, who was my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), if experts could be assembled and consulted. I remember being told that that would be a waste of time, because they would not give us a definite answer. As it happened, they gave an absolutely positive answer—quickly, and they were right. This is, therefore, a subject about which more is known than the layman might realise.
Another point which my hon. Friend did not make—although I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North will make it, so perhaps I had better answer it now—is that there would be no objection if the promoters would agree to a 20 degree shift of the angle of the jetty. I have heard this suggestion several times before. I cannot speak on behalf of the promoters and I cannot possibly give an undertaking on this matter because this, too, is something for the experts.
Sir John Howard's company is at present engaged on a contract for investigating the seabed at the end of the jetty, and what can be done will depend on the results of their investigations. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare said that the Newport Docks, it was hoped, could be enlarged. That was one of the reasons which I said had been given; that it had been hoped for a long time that the Newport Docks could be enlarged, but that it had proved impractieable to take ships of this size. That has been gone into carefully and it involves difficulties which, by common consent, are insuperable.
My hon. Friend said a great deal about the damage this might do to the Portbury project. It is not true to say that the Rochdale Committee turned this down. It did not give it a high priority, but the National Ports Council and the Rochdale Committee are two different bodies. I am quite confident that the Port of Bristol is capable of looking after its own interests in this matter, and if it thought that this project would conflict with its ambitions and hopes I am sure that it would have petitioned against it.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central recognised the need for jetties, but was alarmed at the difficulties involved in this project, and was inclined to favour the Milford project, which will be examined. Here, again, it is a matter for expert opinion, but I can say that on the ship handling side the harbour master at Bristol has naturally been consulted by the promoters. I have discussed the matter very briefly with him, and he is confident that these difficulties can be successfully overcome. From my own personal experience of handling big ships I have no doubt that he is right. Difficulties will doubtless be experienced, but I am sure that, as the months go by, those concerned will find as they gain in experience and confidence that the conditions in which ships can be brought alongside and cast off will be widened.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central said that the engineers could not say what effect the jetty would have on the estuary. I have answered that to the best of my ability. My answer is the same as that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) rightly expressed the crucial importance of freight rates, and gave an indication of the trouble the promoters have been to to investigate some of the technical objections. If this House tonight allows the Bill a Second Reading, I have no doubt that those hon. Members serving on the Committee on the Bill will have cause to regret, perhaps, that quite as much trouble has been taken, because I am sure that those proceedings will be prolonged and detailed.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) made, if I may say so, a characteristically fair intervention. I shall refer to it later, but perhaps I could comment how on two points that he made. He asked for an assurance that the alternative Docks Board scheme would be carefully examined before this scheme was adopted. I can give that assurance, of course, because all the facts will be laid before the National Ports Council, but it is only right to say that, up to date, the dredging experiments that have been carried out are most discouraging. There are very much greater difficulties.
Perhaps I should say, in passing, that one of the advantages from the point of view of the promoters is that no dredging is involved in the present scheme. The main channel is kept dredged by the flow of water—

Mr. Awbery: All the ports are now vying with each other for the opportunity to become "the" port. Advice has been received from Cardiff, Newport, and the others. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had a joint committee covering the whole lot, there would be one advice.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I think that for all practical purposes we have a joint committee in the form of the National Ports Council, which will sift all these projects. As a matter of fact, it is now doing so.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked for an assurance that the technical doubts raised tonight will be explored. I can give that assurance; they will be explored. They have already been explored once in another place at very great length—I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen the tome of all the evidence. They will be explored again if the Bill goes forward to a Committee of this House, then by the National Ports Council and, of course, if any reasonable doubt remains, if the National Ports Council in tendering its advice expresses some doubt, they will have to be explored once again by experts commissioned by the Government.
The course of the debate shows quite clearly that opposition and doubt come from two entirely different quarters, largely unrelated, and I wish to say something, first, about the objections coming from my hon. Friends representing constituencies on the south side of the Bristol Channel. These objections found expression in a newspaper campaign of exceptional virulence which was conducted by the Western Daily Press and Times and Mirror. To give an idea to those hon. Members who have not had the pleasure of reading the newspaper, some of its expressions have been:
An Affront to Nature"; "viciously and criminally ludicrous"; "vicious vandalism"; and "Rape of the Bristol Channel.

A leading article was headed:
Judas, thy initials are P.B.A.
—because the Port of Bristol Authority did not oppose the scheme—and it also said that the scheme would turn the Channel into a noisy, dust ridden annexe of industry.
I hope that my hon. Friends will not go quite as far as that. But if what has been written in that newspaper were to be believed, the execution of this project would be a terribly disastrous thing for Portsihead. Although I have a powerful imagination, I am bound to say that I could not imagine how this project could subject the constituents of my hon. Friend to misery and hardship.
Accordingly, I paid a brief visit to Clevedon and Portishead the day before yesterday to see what grounds there could be for supposing that this jetty would destroy the amenities of those very attractive places. I have come back unconvinced that there is much substance in the complaint that the amenities of Portishead will be ruined, and I cannot see how people living in Clevedon could be affected at all.
It has been suggested that the project would do violence to the sensibilities of the residents and holiday makers on æsthetic grounds. That can only be a matter of opinion. There are many people who regard ships as objects of beauty. Evidently Portishead is well aware of this, because while I was there I acquired a brochure which was called an official guide, price Is., and on page 7 we are told that
Portishead lies beneath wooded hills which shelter it from the cold winds and faces the coast of the Bristol Channel, where the tides are so deep that the stroller may see the big ships passing to and fro, only a few feet away.
On the other hand, lest it be thought that Portishead is a kind of National Trust beauty spot, turning to page 16 of the same brochure, under the sub-head "Industries", I read:
As a site for additional industry Portishead has much to offer.
It has been argued, and I suppose it will be argued again, that if the scheme goes through Portishead will become a sort of second Pompeii, that it will be submerged in dust. It has been said that the inhabitants of this part of the coast of Somerset will be disturbed by the


noise of the unloading apparatus. These matters were extensively examined in another place and if this House allows the Bill to have a Second Reading they will be extensively re-examined in Committee.
Everything that has been said tonight, and I would prophesy that everything that will be said tonight, depends upon expert opinion. But the evidence that has been presented is hearsay evidence. Moreover, it is hearsay expert evidence, which, I hope the right hon. and learned Member for Newport will agree, is the worst kind of hearsay evidence. What assurance do we have that my hon. Friends have correctly interpreted the views of the experts? What opportunities do we have tonight of cross-examining the experts as they will be cross-examined if they appear before a Committee?
I submit, therefore, that these objections on the grounds of amenity are not so decisive as to rule the project out of court without any further inquiry. Yet that is what my hon. Friends are asking the House to do tonight by seeking to deny the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Wilkins: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not telling the House by inference that an iron-ore jetty such as is proposed is a thing of beauty and a joy for ever?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I did not refer to the beauty or otherwise of the iron-ore jetty. On the other hand, I do not think that it would do great violence to the view as a whole. It is well over half a mile away from the nearest point of the coast. True, it obstructs the view from the nearest point of the steelworks on the opposite shore. But during the time that a ship is lying alongside, people will see the ship and not the jetty.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Could my hon. and gallant Friend tell the House from which place in Portis-head the best possible view of this jetty could be obtained?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I would rather not be drawn into that. I think I know what is behind my hon. Friend's question, but I think that I will be silent on it.
May I turn to the objections or the doubts which have been expressed by hon. Members opposite? Before I do so, I should like to say something about the point of view of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is not here tonight. I am sure that had he been here he would have advocated the advantages of a central unloading place at Cardiff. I was grateful to him, when the British Transport Docks Bill was before the House, for what I think was his wisdom and restraint in withdrawing his opposition to that Measure. We all understand his perfectly legitimate constituency interest in wishing to see the establishment of a great ore terminal at Cardiff.
It is regrettable from the Government's point of view that this possibility should have come so late into the field. Nevertheless, it is being looked at with great care, and I am sure that the hon. Member will be encouraged by a letter which I feel entitled to refer to and which by now he will have received from the Chairman of the Docks Board making it clear that the resources of that organisation are now being placed behind the necessary investigations. It may be that, not for the first time, this dark horse entered at the last moment will win the race. If so, the Government, who have no partiality in this matter will rejoice with him in the result.
I turn to the attitude of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, whose constituency is chiefly affected by the Bill. We know that he must be in favour of the best scheme for carrying the ore to these works on whose prosperity the prosperity of so many of his constituents depends. He may question—indeed, he has questioned—whether this is the best scheme. So do I, and so do the Government, and that is why we have referred the whole matter to the National Ports Council.
But the House is not being asked to adjudicate today on which is the best scheme. Technical criticisms, to which I have referred, have been advanced against these proposals. I do not propose to deal with them any further tonight, because this is not the proper time to do so and neither am I the proper person to answer them. They are matters to be thrashed out by the


experts and, under the Private Bill procedure, I suggest that the time for that is in Committee rather than on the Floor of the House.

Sir Spencer Summers: Would my hon. and gallant Friend explain why the House is asked to give a Second Reading to the Bill in advance of the investigations to which he has referred, and why the experts have not presented a unanimous view about what the House should be asked to do? Some of us are in difficulty about the order in which things have occurred. Could my hon. and gallant Friend enlighten us on the matter?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present in the House when I began my speech—

Sir S. Summers: I could not be here, unfortunately.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: :—but I tried to explain that. I pointed out that the reason why we want the Bill, although we still have not decided whether it is the best method, is that a very considerable delay will result in putting these works into effect if we have to proceed, eventually, by the Harbours Act procedure. We should therefore like to have the powers to go forward with this scheme should it be advocated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) said that the experts should be agreed. The promoters are satisfied that they could convince us, as they have convinced the Committee in the other place, that this is a practicable scheme. On the face of it, we think that there is a prima facie case showing that it is a practical scheme, but if my hon. Friend wonders whether the experts are satisfied as between one method in the Bristol Channel and another, that is a matter which will necessarily fall to the National Ports Council to consider.
My hon. Friend may think that it is a little odd that we should be considering the Bill before it has been to the National Ports Council, but I must point out to him that at the moment we are in a transition stage between the old system, when new harbours could be promoted only by a Private Bill, and

the new Order which was only legalised by the Harbours Act.
As I explained before my hon. Friend came in, the reason why we advised the promoters not to abandon the Bill, but to go forward with it was that we had no means of being sure that the Harbours Act would reach the Statute Book in the life of this Parliament. I do not know whether I have answered my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Wilkins: I am obliged to the hon and gallant Gentleman for giving way. He has been very kind in giving way. I wonder whether he would refresh my memory, as one who was a member of the Standing Committee on the Harbours Bill. Was there not a provision in that Bill for matters which were referred to the harbour authorities to give consideration to representations which might be made to them?
In other words, what I am asking is if, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, this proposed jetty scheme were to be referred to the Harbours Board would it be possible for objections, from local authorities, or even objections on behalf of interested parties, to be made to the Harbours Board?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The answer is "Yes", if the project were going through by means of an empowering Order under the Act, but, equally, if we are able to put to the National Ports Council a measure which Parliament has already approved by a Private Bill, it would not be necessary, strictly speaking, for the matter to come back to this House at all. I shall come back to that a little later.
What I should like to do now is to reply to the other point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made, namely, the damage which might be done to the trade of the existing Newport Docks if some of his fears were to be realised. On this, I should like to say two things. First, the House may have noticed that the Docks Board is presenting a petition which, if it is accepted by the Committee of this House, would have the effect of restricting the use of the new jetty to the importation of iron ore. It is proposing a new Clause.
Secondly, and without prejudice to whether the petition succeeds or fails,


the House should not assume from the wording of the Preamble to this Bill that it is intended to establish the company as an independent harbour authority empowered to compete with the Docks Board for trade of every kind. If necessary—I stress, if necessary—there would be ample time, before the works could be completed, to make a harbour revision Order defining with greater precision than is defined in this Bill the relationship between the company, the port authority and the procedure of the Docks Board.
I think that at this stage it is only right to tell the House that we have just received advice from the National Ports Council concerning the future of these authorities and, indeed, of certain other port authorities in the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend expects to announce the Government's attitude towards this advice very shortly. Hon. Members will understand that I cannot anticipate the announcement, but, meanwhile, I can at least assure the House that we are alive to the risks which the right hon. and learned Gentleman apprehends, and we shall take care to see that they are avoided.

Mr. Awbery: Are we to understand that the procedure of the port authority could be changed, or might be changed, or that the Government are considering changing it?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not think that anything I have said would justify the hon. Gentleman reaching that particular conclusion.

Mr. Awbery: I misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I Have not said a word about that.
I shall say no more about the merits or the demerits of the Measure before the House. It has come before Parliament simply because it embodies the first practical scheme for this area which has been evolved. Certainly, it presents considerable engineering difficulties, and yet these are no greater than have been overcome in other countries, and there is no reason to doubt that they could be overcome by this country.
As I have said before, this project will be examined by the Ports Council

in accordance with the Harbours Act which, I would remind the House, reached the Statute Book only 12 days ago. It will be examined in comparison with other Bristol Channel schemes which have been laid before the Council, and I have every confidence in the ability of the Council to submit unbiased and well-informed advice; and I hope the House will share that confidence. If, and only if, the Council recommends this scheme as both sound and necessary, will the Government consider putting it into effect. Before so doing we shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to arrange for further consultations with the local authorities who believe that they would be adversely affected.
I can give one further undertaking, because we realise that if the House were to give a second Reading to the Bill and the Government were forced to have recourse to the procedure under the Harbours Act a further debate in the House would also be forced, and, therefore, we shall take no action to implement the Bill without giving the House of Commons an opportunity to debate our proposals in the light of the recommendations of the National Ports Council when they are received. I realise that such a debate should not take place until early in the life of the next Parliament, but whatever the outcome of the General Election I feel confident that an undertaking of this sort would be honoured.
I have gone as far as I can to allay the fears and suspicions which have been voiced in the debate. I have done my best to show why the Government recommend the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. It is not because we have any particular preference for the Agency's proposals, or that necessarily they will be endorsed or put into effect. We cannot say at this stage. We shall have to wait and see.
Our reasons for hoping that the Bill will go through can be summarised in two sentences. If it is defeated and if, m the end, a scheme on these lines proves to be essential in the interests of the steelworks, a grievous delay will result before it can be carried out. It surely would be inconsistent for Parliament, in the middle of June, to establish a statutory Council to examine proiects of this


sort and then within the month to prejudge what is almost the first major issue to go before that Council.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: It is not usual for an Opposition back bencher to thank a Minister for intervening early in a debate, but I sincerely thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport for his speech. It has enabled mine to be a great deal shorter. With a broadside, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has sunk most of the opponents of the Bill.
Most of the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have a particular interest in the Bill, and I admit that Bristol would enjoy the benefits of the dues from the pier if it were built in accordance with its provisions. At the same time, I shall try to persuade the House that I look at this matter from a different point of view. Here is an essential technical development in the steel industry and the port industry of the country without which it will not be possible for the British steel industry to develop in future, without which we shall not be able to compete with our competitors, and without which we shall not be able to take advantage of the economies of scale.
I do not want to introduce a controversial note, but it should not pass beyond our observation that here is a nationalised industry which has had the foresight to see the necessity for new equipment to bring in large iron-ore carriers and that it has been opposed on amenity ground by two hon. Members opposite. I agree that one of them has not yet spoken, but I can see from the expression on the face of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Sir E. Leather) that he intends to speak on the amenities. But his is a much more serious matter than that.
To be impartial, I want also to criticise my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) for having associated himself with the proviso which Newport seeks to add to the Bill to prevent this jetty from being used for other purposes as well. He knows that our party is pledged to allow nationalised industries to develop freely in the future and not to put limitations on them, like the limitations put on the railway workshops which prevent their

competing with private industry. If this jetty is effective, and it can be used for other purposes as well, it is right that when the legislation is passed it should be freely available for more general use.
I appreciate the point of safeguarding the interests of Newport, but it will be a grave mistake for Parliament, legislating for a new pier and jetty which may last many years into a situation which one canont foresee, to write into the Measure any limitation on its possible use when we know that it might well have useful commercial purposes of a more general kind.
Then we come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), who made a most moving constituency speech which, I think, influenced the whole House. His big anxiety was that there would be an obstruction by the piers in the deep water and that silting might move towards his constituency. He painted a gloomy picture of Weston-super-Mare being denied its sand and bombarded with its own sewage and asked the House to reject the Bill, as I understood him, on those grounds.
But, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, these are not things which the House of Commons, with all its wisdom, can decide, on the Second Reading of a Private Bill. The Bill has to go through a lot of machinery. The National Ports Council has to look at the whole question of whether or not this is a good scheme. Then there are the various harbour authorities involved. Other bodies have already found this to be a sensible proposal. The Port of Bristol itself would never have given the scheme its blessing if it was likely to endanger the Portbury development. The Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Transport and other Departments would never have allowed the matter to get to this stage if they had thought there was sufficient substance in the hon. Member's objections to justify real anxiety.
I am only appealing for the Bill to be given a Second Reading. If we do not do so, we shall be denying ourselves the opportunity of subjecting the fears of the hon. Member to detailed scrutiny by expert witnesses who can in turn be cross-examined. It would be quite wrong not to take that opportunity.
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that, if the Bill is defeated or talked out, it may well be that a grievous delay will be imposed upon an industry fighting to maintain its competitive position in the world. Although I have the greatest respect for this House and its value as a debating Chamber, it is at its weakest when it is seeking to decide on a Second Reading debate a highly complicated, technical question which, with the greatest respect to all hon. Members present, we cannot be qualified to judge ourselves.
We do not know whether the effect of these piers would be to alter the régime of the Estuary, or whether it would be possible for ships of this size to be able to tie up easily without obstructing the deeps which give access to the Portbury development. We cannot know all these technical matters but we can appoint a Committee to go into them in detail, consulting the experts and finding out on our behalf.
Whatever the constituency interests involve, I hope that hon. Members will not seek to prevent the House from sending the Bill to a Committee. The hon. Member for Somerset, North intends to reply on the Amendment. I say to him that it would be a grievous blow against a great industry and an important port interest in the whole of the Southwest, South Wales and Bristol area if he were to talk the Bill out and prevent it being fully considered.
The hon. Member has been a popular Member in his constituency and I respect him for championing the cause of the constituency that he feels he was elected to serve. But he would be doing no service to his constituency if, in one of his last speeches in this House—he is, unhappily, to leave us—he were to prevent the House from reaching a decision, of a preliminary character only, on a Bill of such great importance to the area which he and I have the honour to serve jointly.
Therefore, with these considerations, and allowing for the fact that these things ought to be looked at more fully at a later stage, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.14 p.m.

Sir Edwin Leather: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). While I

appreciate his thought, I believe that all the unknowns he has referred to are very good arguments for coming precisely to a conclusion opposite to that to which he came. I will endeavour to show why that is so, and also why I have every intention, on grounds both of constituency and national interest and in principle, of endeavouring to stop this Bill by any methods which are open to me to do. I believe that it is my bounden duty to do so.
We have had—and I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for giving us—one major step forward in this controversy. In his peroration—and this is the first time that-this has been even mentioned—he pledged that before any final decision was taken, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would be consulted. This is a major change. One cannot help wondering what has been going through the head of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government throughout the course of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) made the complaint—a complaint made firmly and strongly by all of us who are Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned, by the Somerset County Council and every other local authority concerned—that the Bill has been put forward—my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare used the term "in stealth"—certainly in a way in which the procedures and safeguards of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and planning authorities at every level have been completely circumvented, and by which they have been prevented from presenting their views. This is a fact.
I say without hesitation that it is further a fact that had the planning authorities been consulted—were it not for a sheer fluke in the law that the Bill should have reached this stage without the planning authorities being consulted—we would not be debating it tonight, because the Government would not have given it their support. Every one of the planning authorities involved is bitterly opposed to the Bill. In every single case—and there have been many in the 15 years that I have been in the House—when planning permission for any kind of industrial development whatsoever has


been sought in this area, the local planning authorities have turned it down and, on appeal, successive Ministers of Governments of both parties have upheld the local planning authorities in protecting the area from industrial development.
May I make it perfectly clear at the outset that I reject the argument, put forward with great sincerity, particularly by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and by my hon. and gallant Friend, that if we oppose the Bill we are in any way opposing the progress of the great steel industry and this particular company? I should like to make it abundantly clear that those of us concerned have nothing but good will towards this company. Indeed, it is notable that we are talking about supply of the Spencer Works. No doubt in common with a number of other hon. Members, on Wednesday morning it will be my sad duty to attend a memorial service for Sir Harry Spencer, after whom the works were called. He was an old and valued friend of mine for many years, and so are many of those involved. I wish them and their company and their industry and this works which bears the name of a dear old friend of mine nothing but good. I wish to do nothing which would prevent the development of the most modern and economic facilities for ore loading for themselves, or any other steelworks.
But I do not believe that this scheme will do it. I believe that this is the worst possible scheme which could have been brought forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) said that there were three alternative schemes. I suggest to him that he has not been very well briefed. There are many more than three alternative schemes. The three largest and most imaginative schemes which have been put forward did not appear on his list at all.
I am entirely in favour of the Spencer Works, and any other works in South Wales, having the best possible facilities and the most economic equipment avail able for the unloading of iron ore so that they may do their job in the national economy and compete in the markets of the world. My argument is that there are at least half-a-dozen schemes avail able for study and that this Bill is completely premature and—

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale) rose—

Sir E. Leather: Let me finish my sentence—and that in fact a number of other schemes are considered by many experts to be much more attractive and likely to achieve the object we all wish than the one and only very limited scheme which appears in this Bill.

Mr. M. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman is so certain that the expert opinion which he has stated is against this proposal is so overwhelming, why does not he think that the case will be rejected by a Committee of this House which examines all the details? Why does he think that it may not be rejected by the National Forts Council, and why does not he think that the case would subsequently be rejected by the Minister? He has all those safeguards and opportunities to put his opinion. By seeking to talk out this Bill, he is showing to the House that he does not really believe in his own case at all. He is not prepared to put it before those experts.

Sir E. Leather: With respect, that is a complete misinterpretation of the position. I believe that this Bill should not be allowed to go forward, not because I fear expert judgment, but because I think that to allow to be put forward with the support and authority of this House of Commons the one scheme above all others which I profoundly believe to be a bad scheme, the one scheme which tramples on the rights and interests of my constituents without opposing it, would be a gross dereliction of my duty as Member of Parliament for Somerset, North.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire did not even mention the three most important schemes, ideas, plans—call them what hon. Members will—which have been put forward to deal with this very real problem of modernising the facilities for the unloading of iron ore in South Wales.' I do not pretend to be competent to judge which of the schemes is the best. I am not competent to say whether some may be very good or others may be hopless. But I do say that there are other schemes and, therefore, it is quite wrong to argue that if we do not have this scheme we would damage iron ore unloading projects in South Wales.

Mr. Hastings: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the alternatives he has in mind were put forward to the Committee in another place? If not, are they really serious at this stage?

Sir E. Leather: Yes, they are extremely serious. They were all discussed in the evidence in the Select Committee in another place. No doubt if my hon. Friend studied it he would find it as enlightening as I did.
There is a scheme to put a high level transporter conveyor across the River Usk. There is the Usk barrage scheme. There is a scheme for a floating harbour for Newport. The argument about whether the regime of the Newport Deep is very unstable and that in the Bristol Deep completely stable is not at all the clear and simple argument that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made out. One could produce all sorts of experts on these matters to argue passionately for both cases. I am not arguing one way or the other, because I do not know. I am pointing out that the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend that the whole weight of expert evidence is on one scheme and not the other is not correct.

Mr. M. Foot: The hon. Member is misrepresenting what has been said from the Front Bench. The Minister made it clear when he said, "I am not saying that this is the best scheme for dealing with the problem. All I am asking the House to agree to is that experts should be allowed to judge"—instead of the matter being settled by the single opinion of the hon. Member, which is what he is attempting to do if he tries to talk out the Bill.

Sir E. Leather: I am obliged to the hon. Member for assisting me so ably and helping me to talk out the Bill, but he has completely mistaken my point. My point was in relation to the Parliamentary Secretary's comments about the Newport Deep scheme. If the hon. Member reads HANSARD tomorrow he will see that my hon. Friend's opinion is that its régime was unstable, and he went on to say that the régime in the Bristol Deep had been known to be stable since 1775. It is in relation to that specific point that I am saying that the evidence is not at all as clear and

one-sided as my hon. Friend suggested that it would be. There is another scheme known as the Llanwern Docks and Jetty scheme. There is a scheme for setting up conveyor belts from a jetty running into Newport Deep. There are half-a-dozen possibilities, all of which have their supporters and experts who think that they should be given a chance to solve the problem.
The tragedy about the Bill is that this is the one scheme which completely overrides the rights and interests and the lives of thousands of our constituents in Somerset, completely defiles our countryside, completely spoils one of the finest residential areas left on this coast and—a point which has been argued before and which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made no attempt to counter—which has been put through without any consultation whatever and against the strongest possible opposition of all the planning authorities concerned. That is not a matter of argument but a simple statement of fact. The whole question of the relationship between the Bristol and Newport harbour authorities is still completely in the melting pot.
I suggest that the scheme is quite premature. I went so far some months ago as to suggest to the officers of the company that if only they would adjust the angle of this jetty some 10 degrees to 15 degrees all our objections to the Bill would fall. I went as far as to say that I personally would accept the odium of endeavouring to squash the opposition in my constituency if they would do this. Alas, for reasons which have never been explained, they refused to do so. I will explain in a few moments why a change in the angle of the pier would make such a tremendous difference.
Next, I want to deal a little more thoroughly with the whole question of urgency and whether it is true that if the Bill does not go through tonight we shall in some grievous way be harming some scheme which is of extreme urgency. I believe that this argument can be completely defeated on several grounds. The first is that this is not the only company concerned with the problem of importing iron ore into South Wales. There are two others. Where are their Bills? What evidence is there that they have felt that the urgency of their economic need is so great that they must take up the time of the House by putting through a Private


Bill under this procedure to solve their problems? They have done no such thing. Neither of the other two companies, whose problem is identical with that of the promoters of the Bill, has seen fit to put forward a Bill. The hon. Member for Bristol, South-East argued that the Bill must go through tonight in the national interest in order to help this one company. What about the national interest of the other two companies who are placed in precisely the same position? I suggest that the facts speak for themselves.
My hon. and gallant Friend was nice and courteous in his comments to us. He enjoyed himself having fun at the expense of the Members of Parliament for the County of Somerset and the local authorities in our constituencies. But I say with the best will in the world that he did not attempt seriously to deal with the very grave objections arid difficulties which we have. He dismissed the question of the régime and whether the sand would go under the beach at Weston-super-Mare, or whether it would end at Cheltenham or somewhere at the other end of the Severn, with an airy wave of the hand. The important point is that nobody knows. We cannot prove that this will do damage. I pray that it will not. But it is not good enough either for the promoters of the Bill or for the Minister to tell the House, "The promoters say that it will be all right, so get on with it." In fact, no tests have been made. Questions have been put to the Hydraulic Research Station at Wallingford. They confirm that their opinion has not been asked and, secondly, that it would take at least three years to carry out satisfactory tests to find what the effect of the construction of this jetty would be.
I suggest that to proceed with a project like this without having the faintest idea what the effect would be is highly irresponsible. In their statement the promoters would lead the House to believe that the Bill has the highest authority in their own industry. Paragraph 7 of the statement, which I presume was circulated to all or many hon. Members in the last couple of days, specifically says:
The promotion of this Bill has been approved by the Iron and Steel Board and by the Ministries of Transport and of Agriculture.

A notable omission—not by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
In this statement, as in the Bill itself—I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is aware of this—the words "Minister of Housing and Local Government" appear on no occasion and in no place.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I am glad of the opportunity to explain that. The reason is that we believe in hearing evidence before we come to a decision. The proper place for the evidence to be heard under this procedure is before a Select Committee which takes the Committee stage of a Private Bill. Although I sympathise with what my hon. Friend is saying on behalf of his constituents, I suggest to him that this procedure is the very best which we have in the rules of our House for this purpose.
My hon. Friend has misinterpreted my hon. and gallant Friend a good deal. What my hon. and gallant Friend has said all the time is, "Let us hear the experts and let us have a chance to cross-examine them". He has not at any time said that this is proven.

Sir E. Leather: With respect to my hon. Friend, that is completely beside the point. His Ministry is not represented in a Select Committee of the House of Commons. The local planning authorities would not be represented in a Select Committee of the House of Commons. If we are to take his interjection seriously, what my hon. Friend is saying is that his Ministry does not care and that he is not prepared to do anything to protect the interests of the planning authorities. This will come as a great shock to the planning authorities in Somerset.

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend knows very well that, if this were a straight planning issue, there would be a planning inquiry at which all the evidence would be heard. It would be quite wrong and, indeed, impertinent for us to hold an inquiry when the procedure lays down that this is a matter for a Committee of the House of Commons. It is not fair for my hon. Friend to suggest that we do not care or are callous about the matter. What we are doing is respecting the


authority of the House of Commons in the matter of a Private Bill, which is different from the planning procedure.

Sir E. Leather: My hon. Friend has done nothing whatever to reassure me on this point. I am very happy to follow him into the planning procedure. I do not know whether the view of his own officials and of the many elected councillors who sit on the planning bodies of Somerset have been made clear to him. From the tone of his interjection I judge that they most certainly have not been.
The reason why my hon. Friend's Ministry has not at any stage been involved in this unfortunate matter is a sheer fluke, because of a technicality in the law which until now no one has ever noticed. In all our planning legislation, debated at length and passed by the House of Commons, nobody has ever thought to include any provision for things built over water. If someone chose to build a jetty 4½ yards long from the coast of Somerset, the whole majesty of his Ministry would come into play and the procedure of tribunals and public inquiry would have to operate. But we are in the ridiculous position that a jetty not 4½ yards long but 4½ miles long, a jetty completely altering the whole vision of the Somerset countryside and coming within a mile of the coast of Somerset, can be put up without his Ministry even being consulted because the law just never happened to cover that eventuality. I do not believe that it will be very long before some Government will amend our planning laws to deal with the matter.
My hon. Friend must know, and the officials who advise him must know, how strongly all the planning authorities in Somerset are opposed to this Bill. He must know also that until now, in every case in which the Somerset planning authorities have objected to industrial development in this area, his Ministry have upheld them in their judgment. We must be given some very strong reason why the practice and experience of 18 years of saying to private citizens, "You may not put up a works there, you may not build a petrol station here", is now to be thrown out of the window, and without even an explanation, his

Ministry says, "You can turn the whole area into a dockyard and the Ministry will not complain about it". That is the effect of this Bill.

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend has been telling me what I know, and I shall now tell him what he knows. He knows perfectly well that, if something comes up as a planning matter, my right hon. Friend does not support a planning authority as such or go against a planning authority as such; he holds a local inquiry and hears both sides of the issue. What my hon. Friend is suggesting, with respect, is that we should go through this procedure knowing that this was a Private Bill and that, before a Select Committee of the House, the same evidence would be heard, perhaps in even more detail, under the procedure laid down. I put it to my hon. Friend that this would (a) be entirely superfluous and (b) be somewhat impertinent; and it is quite unfair for my hon. Friend to draw the conclusions he does.

Sir E. Leather: We have been through this three times already. I shall not pursue it further. I still do not accept what my hon. Friend says. In closing this phase of my speech, I refer my hon. Friend to the remarks of the Secretary of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, which also is petitioning against the Bill, that
this jetty would be a monumental snook cocked at the Somerset coastline".
That is the opinion of all the planning authorities, and that is the view which hitherto my hon. Friend's Ministry has always supported.
I want to refer to the position in Portishead and say why we feel so strongly about this jetty and why I think that the planning provisions which my hon. Friend prefers to ignore are of the very essence and core of the problem. The coastline of Somerset runs roughly north-east and south-west from Bristol. The coastline of South Wales runs roughly straight east and west. The area from Portishead south is an area which the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in its pamphlet circulated last year with the county plan, says is
an area of great landscape value and all scheduled for residential development only.


This on paper up till this moment has been the policy of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, a policy, I repeat, which in all the years I have been the Member for this constituency it has rigidly enforced. My hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport enjoyed himself by playing with Portishead's little pamphlet. He referred to the fact that there is industry in Portishead. This is true. My hon. and gallant Friend said that he went to Portishead on Saturday and looked round. I suggest to him that if he really did look round he must know himself that the point he made, although an amusing one for debate, is most unfair to the argument.
The fact of the matter is that the headland in Portishead comes out to a point, and north of that point is an industrial area referred to in the pamphlet. South of that point and the other side of a substantial hill, completely separated from the industrial area is, alas, the area affected by the Bill. If the jetty proposed in the Bill were to come out north of the headland in the area of the Portishead power station and of the docks and the factory, we would have no argument. This would be perfectly reasonable.
However, if my hon. and gallant Friend looked at the ground and the water, as he says he did, he must also know that that is not the case, alas. The head of this jetty comes out the south side of the point and right in the middle of what the Ministry of Housing and Local Governmen calls
an area of great landscape value".
It is, in fact, an area populated almost entirely by older people. There are many such areas in this country; it is a beautifull piece of seaside where people, very often those who are not too well, have gone to retire in peace and quiet and enjoy the benefit of the sea air. I repeat that the Bill would turn that area into a dock yard.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: What I cannot understand—I am sure that my hon. Friend will explain it—is why one discharging jetty two-thirds of a mile away from the area will destroy the peace and quiet.

Sir E. Leather: I am only too happy to explain to my hon. and gallant Friend. It is my next paragraph. I do not think

that it is appreciated by many hon. Members, even those who have listened to the debate, that what the citizens of Portishead will have put clown in front of them is not the point end of a jetty. The jetty comes out from the South Wales coast no less than four and a half miles. It then turns at right angles and runs exactly parallel down this residential section of Portishead, less than a mile from the coast. The jetty is to be 1,800 feet long, 100 feet wide and 200 feet high out of the water. I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that if this project were one to put an industrial installation, a dockyard or a gas works, of this size and stature into the nicest residential district of Croydon, he would take it much more seriously than he is indicating he takes it tonight. This is completely altering the character of this district. This jetty, 1,800 feet long, will operate day and night, will take ships up to 65,000 tons, two at a time. It will be covered by a conveyor system, with cranes, grabs and dock machinery. This will be put down in an area which the Ministry of Housing and Local Government now protects as one of great landscape value.
It is no exaggeration to say that this is building a dockyard—with all the chaos, confusion and dust that goes with it—yet my hon. and gallant Friend rode off gaily, even superficially, in respect of an area where 6,000 people, mainly elderly, want to live in peace and contentment. Their interests have been utterly and cynically disregarded in the promotion of this Bill, and I find it shocking that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government should seem to regard the whole thing as a great joke.

Mr. Wilkins: Would the hon. Member elaborate a little on this point of his objection? I speak as one who has had some apprehension about the aesthetic effects of this jetty on the whole of the estuary. Do I understand the major objection of the people in the area to be simply that of noise? Is he saying that if the jetty were sited to the north of its proposed siting there would be no objection from those people; that wherever the jetty is sited other than there he would have no objection? I am sure he is aware that if the only


objection is the noise nuisance that would rather undermine the thoughts I had had on the subject.

Sir E. Leather: I am grateful to the hon. Member for mentioning that and for allowing me to make the point clear. I entirely agree with him.

Mr. Wilkins: The hon. Member said that if the jetty were sited further to the north he would not object. Is that right?

Sir E. Leather: With respect, I did not say that I would not object to that. I said that the objection I had raised would fall to the ground. Nevertheless, other people would object strenuously. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me this chance to make myself clear; and if I misled him I apologise.

Mr. Wilkins: Others would object?

Sir E. Leather: Certainly, including, I presume, the hon. Member, who objects on aesthetic grounds. I am trying, in the limited time available, to make a specific case for people in the area feeling terribly worried about the siting of this jetty. If the Bill gave a series of schemes my objection would fall to the ground. Unfortunately, it does not. It is confined to one specific scheme and I am putting a specific objection to it.
The Minister dealt with the objections of noise airily and dismissed them as being of no purport. I suggest, with respect, that that is not accurate. This will be a dock 1,800 ft. long. It will take two or three, if they are of a smaller tonnage, tankers and will work day and night, year in and year out. As we have heard, the tide will rise and fall between 40 and 50 ft. The ore is not to be unloaded out of these ships by suction pipes or conveyor belts. According to the Bill, it has been found practically impossible to devise a conveyor belt scheme that could cope with a rise and fall of the ships of 40 ft. to 50 ft.
According to the Bill, and according to ' the evidence given to the Select Committee in another place, this job will be done by 20-ton grabs. To suggest that one can drop 20 tons of iron ore a minimum of 20 ft. and sometimes up to 60 ft. without making an appalling din is really to ask us to believe that black

is white. It must be noisy, and we all know that it must be noisy.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not wish to mislead the House. The grab will not drop the ore into a ship that is going up and down but on to a conveyor belt, which remains at the same height. I cannot enlarge on it now, because this is not the time or place, but the expert evidence is to the effect that the noise level will be, anyhow, a mere fraction of the normal traffic noise level in Portishead.

Sir E. Leather: With respect, that evidence has been expertly challenged in the Select Committee already, and just did not stand up. According to the evidence given by the promoters of the Bill, the drop would be 20 ft. With the ships, rolling as they frequently do roll in this passage of water—as the hon. Member for Bristol, Central says, the wind comes roaring down the channel—and with these 20-ton grabs clanging against the sides of the ships, to suggest that that can be done without noise is, I repeat, to argue that black is white. We all know perfectly well that dockyards are extremely noisy places—and I should have thought that my hon. and gallant Friend knew that better than most of us.
The promoters have not carried out any noise tests—any noise tests—in this area whatsoever. They have refused to do it. The local authorities have carried out tests with quite conclusive results—I can only presume that my hon. and gallant Friend has not been told about them. In fact, foghorn sirens and various other noise-making equipment were put on a drilling rig precisely on the spot where the No. 3 works of this jetty are proposed. The result was a flood of complaints all night long from all sorts of people in Portishead who were kept awake.
This will go on, off and on, all night, every night of the year. This is not what my hon. and gallant Friend chose so gaily to dismiss as hearsay expert evidence but the results of practical tests. Under examination in the Select Committee in another place the promoters' own witnesses agreed that between 45 and 50 decibels at night would be what they called "objectionable". To suggest


that this project can be carried out without creating at least 50 decibels of noise at night is ridiculous.
Furthermore, I would point out that this is over water and expert evidence has been called to deal with this point. Sound is well known to travel much more clearly over water than over land. Evidence that it does so was produced before the Select Committee and was not challenged by the promoters. It could not be challenged, because this is a phenomenon we all know perfectly well. We have all experienced it. Particularly on a still night—we have all heard it—sound over water from people in small boats or on the other side of a lake, a mile away, carries distinctly.
The independent acoustic expert called by the county planning authority to put forward an expert view summed up his evidence like this:
In my opinion there will be a continual sound of machinery in operation interspersed by loud bangs when the material is dropped or the grubs hit the side of the vessel.
I repeat, this goes on day and night. I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that to brush it off with a wave of the hand and to suggest that it does not matter is completely to ignore the fundamental rights of the people whose lives are affected by it.
The same applies to dust. My hon. and gallant Friend waved the dust risk aside and said that it will not arise. But there are all kinds of evidence, as well as common sense, to show that the dust risk does exist. Again the promoters of the Bill have carried out no tests whatsoever either to prove or disprove that there will be a risk of dust pouring into the homes of the people at Portis-head and Redcliff Bay. We are simply asked by the Parliamentary Secretary to accept that the promoters' own engineer says, "I do not think there will be any dust", and this is supposed to be good enough for this House. I do not think it is good enough for the House of Commons.
All dust is known to be very small. Particles of 12·5 microns in size are

recorded in this country as having been carried up to 7,000 yards in a 10 m.p.h. wind. The height of the take-off point on this jetty at low water mark will be 200 ft. above the ground. Is my hon. and gallant Friend dismissing this as being of no significance? In the evidence of the promoters it was calmly and blandly said that it was very unusual for the wind to be blowing in the direction of Portishead. This again is completely untrue. It is known to be untrue on the facts. The weather records for the area concerned show that over the last ten years the wind blew directly from the area of this jetty right over the town of Portishead on an average between one in every three and one in every four days.

I suggest that this is further evidence of the completely irresponsible and ill-considered way in which this Bill has been put forward, and is a further reason why this House should not give it cognisance in any way. If we do so, whatever safeguards are urged tonight, we all know perfectly well that on the next occasion when it suits any Minister of Transport it will be argued, "The House of Commons gave it a Second Reading, old boy, so you know that they must 'lave approved it." This is what will happen. We all know it, and it is sheer humbug to suggest that it will not.

No one can say precisely what effectc the building of this jetty will have on the régime. We do not know what damage it may create. We fear that it may create a great deal of damage; we do not know. But it is not good enough for a Minister to come to the House and say, "We do not know, but we do not think it will be very much"—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir William Anstruther-Gray) rose in his place and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 2.

Division No. 112.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Beaney, Alan
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Renn, Anthony Wedgwood
Box, Donald


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Bingham, R. M.
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward


Barlow, Sir john
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Barter, John
Bourne-Arton, A.
Braine, Bernard




Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Peyton, John


Bullard, Denys
Holland, Philip
Pitman, Sir James


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hollingworth, John
Pounder, Rafton


Chataway, Christopher
Holt, Arthur
Pym, Francis


Cleaver, Leonard
Hopkins, Alan
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cole, Norman
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Rees Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Cooke, Robert
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Ronton, Rt. Hon. David


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hughes-Young, Michael
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Corfield, F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Coulson, Michael
James, David
Roots, William


Crithley, Jullan
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, William


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Doig, Peter
King, Dr. Horace
Scott-Hopkins, James


Donnelly, Desmond
Kirk, Peter
Seymour, Leslie


Doughty, Charles
Lawson, George
Sharples, Richard


du Cann, Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Short, Edward


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Skeffington, Arthur


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Small, William


Finch, Harold
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Finlay, Graeme
MacArthur, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Eric
McBride, N.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stones, William


Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Storey, Sir Samuel


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Manuel, Archie
Studholme, Sir Henry


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mapp, Charles
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gammans, Lady
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Goodhew, Victor
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Gourlay, Harry
Mawby, Ray
Thornton, Ernest


Gower, Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Green, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Millan, Bruce
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton
Walder, David


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Miscampbell, Norman
Walker, Peter


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Whitelaw, William


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Whitlock, William


Hayman, F. H.
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Wilkins, W. A.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
O'Malley, B. K.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woollam, John


Hendry, Forbes
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)



Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hilton, A. V.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson and Mr. Hastings.



Percival, Ian





NOES


Maddan, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Mr. Webster and Sir Edwin Leather.

Question, That "now" stand part of the Question, put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Orders of the Day — DRUGS (PREVENTION OF MISUSE) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(PENALIZATION OF UNAUTHORISED POSSESSION OF SCHEDULED SUBSTANCES.)

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, after "exemptions" to insert "or conditions".
The purpose of the Amendment is twofold. Perhaps I may deal with our secondary motive first. In the Second Reading debate I made some observations about negotiations which had been in progress with the manufacturers of drinamyl tablets following upon a' suggestion made, I think, first by the Pharmaceutical Society, that the manufacturers might with advantage change the appearance of these tablets. The point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin).
At that time I understood, and I believe that this was the case, that negotiations had been unsuccessful, and up to that time, and indeed up to the Committee stage, when I repeated these strictures, the firm had been unwilling to change the appearance of these tablets. Many of us thought that to some extent it was the appearance of the tablets that constituted a danger. To give the Home Secretary the power to require a manufacturer to make a change of this kind, if he felt it was in the public interest and the manufacturer was unwilling to do it, I gave notice in Committee that we might move an Amendment of this nature.
I understand that negotiations have now been brought to a successful conclusion. When he replies to the debate, perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary to the Home Department may be able to confirm that and tell us a little more. It would be undesirable, for obvious reasons, to go into too much detail about the changes that are proposed to be made, but I am glad that, perhaps a little tardily and possibly for good reasons, the manufacturers have now agreed to make this change.
This, however, raises the wider issue of whether, on a future occasion, there might be a similar deadlock in connection with a manufacturer who, perhaps, was not so amenable. It might be as well for the Home Secretary to have these powers, and not only to make exemptions. When, for example, registering a company manufacturing or distributing the kinds of drugs specified in the Schedule, he should be able to impose conditions on the issue of such a licence or agreement to register.
It may be that the hon. Gentleman will say that the Amendment is not the appropriate way of doing it in the Bill. If he were to say that, I would not argue with him very furiously, but there is something to be said for giving this power to the Home' Secretary in case we have a recurrence without a happy conclusion of the sort of difficulties that we have had in the past few months. I know that, normally, Secretaries of State are not unwilling to assume powers which the House presses upon them, but in this case there is something to be said for giving the right hon. Gentleman the power and I should be glad to hear the hon. Gentleman's reaction.

Mr. Norman Cole: I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill, but I must have missed this point. I appreciate the point that these tablets constitute a danger when they have the appearance of the old-fashioned cachou, but I do not think that appearance weighs very much with those who want to take handfuls of them. I pay tribute to the manufacturers of this drug for their action, for they must be sacrificing something in the impact of their advertisements. It must not be forgotten that these tablets were evolved for legitimate purposes by the manufacturers, who built up a strong public name for them in their original appearance.
I am surprised that it should be considered a possibility that the Home Secretary should have power to lay down conditions, if not in this case then in future cases, as to the appearance of a particular drug within the ambit of the Schedule. Surely, in dealing with "purple hearts", we would cause considerable difficulty to officers in recognising them if these tablets took on a different appearance or colour. After


all, we want the police to be able to spot them easily and, therefore, they should remain in their present appearance.
Secondly, the Amendment would charge my right hon. Friend with the duty of laying down and changing from time to time what should be the appearance of proprietary articles. That would be an extraordinary power. Where would the process stop?

Mr. K. Robinson: There is no question of imposing a duty on the Home Secretary. This would merely give him a reserve power to use in extreme circumstances.

Mr. Cole: I have great respect for the views of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) on this. He has been a tower of strength throughout the Bill. But surely the Home Secretary would only be wishing to exercise these powers in cases comparable with that of "purple hearts," recognisable by all and sundry. Let us confine our thoughts to the recognisable case we have at the moment.
Surely, if these tablets are recognisable, that is half the battle in suppressing their wrong use. I hope that my hon. Friend will think about this very carefully. Let us not have the Secretary of State accepting powers which he does not expect to use most of the time and about which he would be doubtful if he did use them. I was not aware of what was intended by this Amendment until the hon. Member moved it. I reserve my position about it.

10.15 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) has raised this point and I am sure that the solution he is content with is the right one—namely, that, in this particular case, a decision of the manufacturer should be accepted in preference to putting some power into the hands of the Home Secretary to be used in extreme cases if other manufacturers should prove intransigent. It is only one example of the extremely difficult problem of how we are to identify, by physical means, the many thousands of tablets of different kinds which are used

in medicine for legitimate purposes, but sometimes for illegitimate purposes. The trouble is that there are not enough colours or shapes to go round.
It is a problem which has exercised the manufacturing industry and professional pharmacy for many years. I do not think that anyone could claim that they have yet found a solution. I do not think that we can be content simply to leave the problem there and I am sure that further inquiry and investigation as to the possibility of finding physical means of identification of tablets will be extremely important.

Mr. Cole: Surely, in these circumstances, to change, where possible, the appearance of tablets of which we wished to keep cognisance would be the wrong way to effect the objective. We want them to keep the same picture.

Sir H. Linstead: I would not disagree. What is needed is some attempt at standardisation so that we do not have two tablets of the same colour and shape but of very different composition being easily mistaken one for the other simply because the physical characteristics happen to be the same. We should regard the Bill as a satisfactory temporary solution for our purpose, but it is an indication of the need for a very much wider recasting of the law in relation to medicine.
I hope that this recasting will come in the next Parliament. I know that, in the Ministry of Health, considerable study is being given to the possibility and it may be that an appropriate body, set up under a new Statute, could work at the whole problem with a view to laying down basic principles upon which colours, shapes, and so on, could be used for the purpose of identification. In the absence of that, it is probably unwise for statutory powers to be taken and if, in these circumstances, some agreement has been reached with the manufacturers, I am sure that that is probably the best temporary solution.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) gave notice in Committee, as he has said, of his intention to table an Amendment to this effect in certain circumstances.


As he has very handsomely acknowledged this evening, those circumstances no longer obtain. I can confirm, as he and other hon. Members have asked me to do, that the negotiations with the manufacturers of the so-called "purple hearts" have reached a successful conclusion. For reasons to which he alluded, the exact character of the successful conclusion, though we all accept it as satisfactory, is one which is probably best not canvassed in detail in public.
The hon. Member has acknowledged, and I should like to endorse, the propriety and sense of responsibility which the firm concerned has exercised. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) that it is very useful to have the opportunity of this Amendment to discuss the general question in case any similar circumstances in future might seem to necessitate, or to persuade some people that it is desirable to have, some similar intervention by the Secretary of State backed by statutory powers.
In Committee, the hon. Member adduced another reason why it might be desirable to invest the Secretary of State with some additional power, namely, that an Amendment on these lines would make it possible for the Secretary of State to attach to the registration of a manufacturer a further condition that the manufacturer or wholesaler should make his records of transactions in drugs controlled under the Bill available for inspection.
After giving very careful thought to the hon. Member's arguments, our own view has been that if there were to be a power to attach conditions to registration for either of these two purposes, it would probably be preferable that the purposes in question should be specifically named in the Bill rather than that there should be a general power to attach unspecified conditions to registration. In that light we carefully 'considered whether an Amendment should be made to meet the hon. Member's point about inspection of records by giving the Secretary of State a detailed power to attach such a condition to registration.
However, we concluded that, as such a power would be extremely seldom used, and as the police say that they have no

difficulty about getting access to records when making investigations, the power was unnecessary. It also seemed to be unnecessary to have a statutory power to require manufacturers either to use or not to use particular shapes or colours, which was the hon. Member's other purpose in moving the Amendment. As he said himself in Committee, we would hope for the co-operation of the manufacturers if difficulties arose over a particular type of drug, as in the case of the drinamyl tablet, and we feel—and this particular case has amply reinforced that feeling—that we are getting all the cooperation that we can ask for or need.
It has to be recognised, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, who has great experience in these matters, that a decision of this kind is not easy to take. There can be no guarantee that a change in the colour or shape of the tablets will have the desired effect of lessening the illicit demand for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) adduced some arguments on the opposite side. None the less, we have found manufacturers very willing to consider in a responsible way suggestions made to them for dealing with the problem of a particularly attractive combination of shape and colour.
We must also recognise that opinion is divided, not only between my hon. Friends the Members for Putney and Bedfordshire, South, but also, and in particular, in the medical profession about the desirability of pills of various kinds being given distinctive shapes and colours or being uniformly anonymous. Our feeling is that before the Government stepped in with statutory powers to issue directives to manufacturers we should want to have the fullest consultation with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry and the professions of medicine and pharmacy. Given, as we fortunately have in this country, a highly reputable industry and professions, after such consultation it is extremely unlikely that any directive would have to be issued.
It is a matter which can be more appropriately considered—and will have to be considered—in connection with amending legislation concerning medicines which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has announced that he is preparing. I think that it would be more appropriate to leave this matter to be


dealt with, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney suggested, in that legislation so far as it may be necessary.

Mr. Cole: When the Bill becomes law a constable who is not satisfied with the bona fides of a person in possession of "purple hearts" can arrest him. I do not wish to be given any private information, but can my hon. Friend tell me how the constable will recognise the tablets?

Mr. Woodhouse: My hon. Friend must recognise that the provisions in the Bill are not confined to "purple hearts" which, incidentally, are neither purple in colour nor heart-shaped. They are designed to deal generally with substances of the kind defined in the Schedule. The so-called "purple hearts" happen to be one peculiarly identifiable at this moment. That may not always be so. Other substances which it is equally desirable to control may become similarly identifiable and one must look at the whole range of these tablets, not merely at a particular specimen.
I was saying that this is a problem which may be looked at again in connection with the legislation which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is preparing for later consideration. That,

as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney suggested, seems a most appropriate context in which to look at the problem, because it can be examined against the whole field of medicines and not purely in connection with the relatively narrow sector represented by these drugs. For these reasons I will forbear to add any of the usual remarks about "defective Amendments". Addressing the matter in principle, I hope that the hon. Gentleman may feel disposed not to press his Amendment.

Mr. K. Robinson: Clearly, there are difficulties about doing what is sought to be done by the Amendment. It may prove that nothing of the kind is necessary. I hope that the confidence of the hon. Gentleman in the industry proves to be well-founded and that if a similar situation arises it will meet with a similar and perhaps an even quicker response than over drinamyl.
On balance, I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member that it would be better to consider the whole matter in the context of the very comprehensive Bill which must come before the House during the course of the next Parliament. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, after "liable", to insert "(i)".
Perhaps it would be convenient to take, at the same time, the Amendment in line 25, at the end to insert:
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.
The Amendment is put forward in fulfilment of an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in Standing Committee. Clause 1 makes unauthorised possession of substances subject to the provisions of the Bill an offence and provides that anyone contravening the Clause shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both. Needless to say, at the time that the Bill was being drafted this was felt to be a suitable penalty, bearing in mind that the offence in question is that of unauthorised possession and not of trafficking, and that unauthorised possession can be and often will be of a comparatively minor character. The maximum of six months' imprisonment was also decided upon in this conext, bearing in mind that it was the usual maximum term which can be awarded on summary conviction.
However, on Second Reading a number of hon. Members seemed to feel that heavier penalties ought to be available for dealing with offenders who were trafficking in amphetamine type drugs and making large profits out of doing so. It was suggested that such traffickers would not be deterred by fines of £200 or even four months' imprisonment which, allowing for remission, is what it would amount to. In view of that feeling, my right hon. Friend suggested in Committee that consideration might be given to having penalties on summary conviction comparable to those at present in the Bill and to inserting, in addition, substantially heavier penalties for conviction on indictment.
It will be seen from the Amendments that we are enacting a hybrid provision of a similar kind to that which is to be found in Section 15(2)—the penalty provisions

—of the Dangerous Drugs Act. This suggestion was discussed at some length in Standing Committee and was generally welcomed, although it was seen that there were some difficulties in it. Fairly close consideration was given to other possible alternatives. I will not weary the House at this late hour by rehearsing the difficulties which confronted us in considering other alternatives, one of which was to have different penalties for those who become habituate in the drugs and those who traffic in them. Another was to have different penalties for people of different ages and another was simply to have a higher maximum penalty even on summary conviction. For various reasons none of these seemed to be desirable or workable.
All of them have been carefully examined again, but we finally came to the conclusion that the proposal to have a hybrid provision of the kind contained in the Dangerous Drugs Act, and embodied in the two Amendments, was the most acceptable suggestion. Some concern was expressed during the debate that comparatively innocuous persons, teenagers seeking for kicks, who might be found in possession of a small number of pills, would be liable to the full penalties prescribed for conviction on indictment. My right hon. Friend thought it right to warn the Standing Committee that the effect of these Amendments would be that, according to the letter of the law, they would be so liable.
Much of the discussion in Committee was directed towards protecting such persons from the possibility of long sentences of imprisonment. Although these severer penalties could be applied to anyone changed under the new provisions, I think it right to remind the House that the law already provides substantial protection for young persons from being sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. There are such safeguards in the Criminal Justice Acts of 1948 and 1961, and there are also provisions enabling the courts to deal with suitable cases by way of probation order, with a condition for medical treatment under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, or by an order under the Mental Health Act, 1959, or the Scottish


Act of 1960 in cases where that might be appropriate.
In the circumstances, therefore, it has not seemed necessary to make any further special protective provision on behalf of the relatively minor offenders who might be charged with being in possession of a few pills. It seems preferable to leave these matters to the discretion of the court, which has, as I have said, a fairly wide range of alternatives open to it. I hope, therefore, that the House will be disposed to accept these Amendments, which are put down in fulfilment of my right hon. Friend's undertaking.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The Minister has explained the circumstances in which the Government have put down these two Amendments, the substance of them being contained in the second one. Considerable concern was expressed both in the Committee and on Second Reading at the fact that, as the Bill stands, no attempt is made to distinguish between the offence, if any, committed by somebody who is an addict, perhaps a teen-ager found in possession of some "purple hearts", on the one hand, and the person who exploits the desire of young people for these drugs, on the other, the person who traffics in them on a large scale for the purpose of gain.
The offence under Clause 1 is having one of these substances in one's possession, and this offence, under the Bill as it stands, is committed equally by the person who has one or two for the purpose of taking them and by the person who has several thousands for the purpose of peddling them and exploiting the desires of those who want them.
It was felt on both sides that, unless something were done in the penalty provision, we should not be attacking the main evil at which the Bill was directed. As the Minister said, we canvassed the possibility of distinguishing in terms between the offence of those who engage in this racket for selfish gain and of those who are the victims of the racketeers. I was conscious of the difficulties of drawing a distinction, one of them being that sometimes an addict has 10, 20, perhaps more, of these for retailing on

a small scale. Therefore, there are people who are both addicts and who could be said sometimes to be trafficking in them to a small extent.
Thus, although the solution found by the Home Secretary is not ideal, it is probably the best which can be devised in the circumstances. The Amendment provides that the courts will have power to inflict much more severe sentences on those nefarious persons at whom the Bill is mainly aimed. As the Minister said, by adopting this solution it also exposes the addict, the teen-ager, to the heavier punishment which is in itself undesirable; and one must hope that there will be wise exercise of discretion, not only by the courts but by the police in dealing with offenders coming under the Bill.
I am sure that the Home Secretary, in so far as it lies within his province, will see that those responsible for administering the law draw the clearest distinction between racketeers, the traffickers, in "purple hearts" and the unfortunate people who become addicts to them.

Mr. Cole: I agree with everything that has been said in support of the Amendment, including the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). One point bothers me, and perhaps those in the legal profession will be able to explain this. We find in the Clause that, with the insertion of the Amendment, we have the words:
…(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £200 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both".
We then find the words:
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both".
Considering the lengthy discussion that we had on conviction on indictment and summary conviction, I am wondering why, in (i), we specify a fine and imprisonment or both, while in (ii) we specify a term not exceeding two years but the sum is not defined. In other words, why do we not specify an amount of the fine in (ii)?

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Nobody wants to delay for a moment the progress of the Bill to another place, least of all I. Nobody wants to divide against this Amendment tonight,


although those who have wrestled with this subject much more closely than we in this House will be the first to admit that to find the final solution is an intractable problem indeed.
Since some progress has been made, we can hope that further thought may be given to the presentation of a further Amendment in another place; and that is what I am asking tonight. We are grateful for the effort which has been made to meet the criticisms and for this Amendment, but I must continue to ask two questions, bearing in mind the lines of the Bill and its punishment for persons found in possession of this substance. At whom is it aimed? Is this an adequate weapon to place in the hands of the police, who, we know, will be anxious to have greater powers? Can we, as it were, send them off on the duty of cleaning up this racket? On both of these points there are some doubts.
The first doubt we should clear out of the way is the fact that the problem is not yet solved. How, for example, do we get at the beneficial owner, the person who has in his possession this substance? Does he have a building in his possession—a club, a registration certificate of a company, or a list of stocks belonging to a club? If we are to get at that man we must say that, in the circumstances, no penalty less than those available under the dangerous drugs legislation would be entirely adequate.
10.45 p.m.
Now we have had a good deal of debate about the difficulties of naming the beneficial owner of the club concerned. We have had a good deal of debate on a particular club I named, when I said that the owner would be able to prove that he did not own it. That has caused some talk, and some lawyers to say that what I have said is outrageous, and challenge me to say it again outside the House. I hope that they will not object if I go outside and quote their letters from their company office.
One says:
Our letter of the 28th November was written on behalf of Mrs. Rachman, in whom the lease of this property is now vested.
Another, dated 21st May, 1964, says:
We enclose herewith our cheque for £1,500, being the three quarters' outstanding rent from Mrs. Rachman.

Mr. Roland Nash, whom I have named before, came to be mentioned, although he would be able to say that he did not own the club, because the beneficial interest is in Albert Grew. He came to see me and say that he had had no business connections with Mrs. Rachman for years, that Mr. Rachman had died a pauper, and was living in poverty. Since then we now know that Mrs. Rachman was living in a flat in Regent's Park, costing £2,000.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The hon. Member is going wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Parkin: I am establishing the fact that the further we look into this the clearer the picture becomes. As we have examined this problem of who is behind the drug racket in Soho we find, bit by bit, the emergence of a group of people and names which repeat themselves again and again. I want to know why the Government do not feel able to consider again whether there ought not to be an investigation of the scandals connected with the Rachman estate, since these names are cropping up again and again in connection with this particular drug.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are really not connected, in this Amendment, with the question of an investigation. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I think that my hon. Friend was drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the two Amendments before the Committee are not sufficiently strong to control the activities of these people who are making drugs available to young people in the London area. He was proposing that this should be looked at in another place so that stronger penalties and periods of imprisonment could be brought in.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is entitled to say that, but he cannot develop the case for investigation in great detail in making the case that this Amendment does not go far enough.

Mr. Parkin: My case that it does not go far enough is linked with the problem we have had before us before now—what goes on behind the front men. Every


time we find a pusher we find someone else behind him. We find a club; behind that we find a limited company; behind that a transfer of shares, and the beneficial ownership of the club lies in the owner of the lease.
Surely the Minister must be impressed by the mounting evidence. I can find these things out. Why cannot the Government? If two hard-working journalists like Ronnie Maxwell and Lynn Lewis, of the Sunday Mirror, can ask a simple question that I myself overlooked asking, why cannot the Government?
The Bill has been drafted by the Home Office, and this Amendment is in the Home Secretary's name. He made a most unfortunate remark last year, with the best of intentions, when he said, "Let us put this filth into oblivion behind us." That is not the way to find out the truth of what is happening—to turn one's back on a problem and forget it. It is, to say the least, unfortunate that the investigation was not made at the time, because the results would have been available and the Government could have claimed the credit for starting it off. We shall get to a final conclusion when they find the way to tackle this problem.
I leave this argument—I have made it before—but it cannot be stifled. The information will come in steadily, and pile up, until this or the next Government set up the necessary machinery for inquiring into this sort of trickery, which goes on behind most of the rackets in this country.
Is this penalty adequate for those who are the professional pushers? At the beginning of our debates on the Bill I tried very hard not to glamourise this matter in the eyes of young people. It is most important, when dealing with teen-age addiction, that we should not represent it as an heroic defiance of society and authority, or let them think that they are doing something daring, as the gangsters do, and the "hard stuff" drug addicts.
I regret that as a result of my own investigations and meeting the sort of people I have met I find that there is a very close connection between what I might call the large-scale methods of distribution of these drugs and the

methods of those who also traffic in heroin, "weed," and the other addictives. I hope that if such people are apprehended it will be possible to prove their connection with the D.D.A. offences. In all probability, if they can be dealt with under that heading or, perhaps, in a combination of the two, we might get at the people we want.
Is this an adequate weapon to put in the hands of the police? I hope that we shall face up to the problem of one aspect of the public's relations with the police. Discussions are going on, and there are improvements in organisation in every department, which we hope will come to useful conclusions, and we are convinced will come to useful conclusions, over the problem of the specific complaint by a specific citizen about the conduct of a specific policeman. But let us understand that the police are constantly embarrassed by the maintenance of the legend in places like Soho that one cannot go direct to the police but must go to the man with the policeman in his pocket.
We who raise these delicate and controversial topics in public, and from our privileged position on these benches, should face this, and ask: in whose interest is it that there should be any general second-hand accusation against particular officers or against the police force as a whole? Of course, it is in the interests of the group of people who want to hold their own employees by this tyranny of blackmail. To them, it is worth a small fortune to be seen walking along a street with a policeman known to be charged with the supervision of some of these very difficult problems.
Cheery greetings to a policeman can be intended to convey to someone else that there is a degree of intimacy that does not exist. It only needs a new man to be appointed and the stories will immediately be put about. His name will be recognised, and someone whose interest it is to pretend he can control the police will say, "I know that fellow very well indeed. I knew him when he was first on the beat. I had him in my pocket when he was a sergeant."
There is not a word of truth in it. We ought not to let the Bill pass unless we can face these longer-term problems, because it is unfair to put into the hands


of the police a weapon which only enables them to apprehend those half way up the scale of crookedness and wickedness, enabling the so-called "greater" men to say, "You see, the policeman gets his promotion by" knocking off "the smaller offenders. The police never get the big chap. He is safe."
I hope that I have put that point fairly. It is one about which I feel very deeply. We ought to have a sense of responsibility and realise that it is not good enough for us to adopt a Bill of this kind and say, "Here is the book of words. Put it in the hands of the police and they will get to the truth of the matter." The relationship between gambling and "purple hearts" may not be evidence in the terms of the Bill, but, in practice, the relationship between those who traffic in the more dangerous drugs and those who carry out the protection rackets connected with gambling dens is perfectly well known. Once the addiction has taken hold of a miserable wretch, he will do literally anything—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but I find it very difficult to connect this argument with the increase in the penalties provided by the Amendment.

Mr. Parkin: I find it very difficult to accept, even over the last six months, the relationship to which I have just referred. I am unwilling to accept this connection.
I started off by saying that this is a teen-age malaise, which affects school children. It is only when one actually does detailed research into these matters that one comes to these alarming conclusions. I do not want to develop them at great length, but in this last stage of the Bill I think that there is a point—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is not the last stage of the Bill. This is an Amendment to increase the penalties. I do wish the hon. Gentleman would pay some regard to what I have been saying.

Mr. Parkin: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I meant, of course, the last stage at which one could suggest any Amendments to the Bill.
I am, therefore, taking this opportunity to make these few remarks, because

cause I do not intend to worry the House at a later stage with general views on the Bill. I am taking this last opportunity, on this Amendment, to deal with the problem which echoes throughout every Clause of the Bill, to ask the House to think again on the arguments that I have put forward and to encourage everyone else to think again and to see whether the Bill can be improved still more when it reaches another place.

Mr. Manuel: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin). When we are dealing with a matter which is possibly the greatest social menace facing our young people today, especially young people coming to London and into the larger aggregations of population, we should ask ourselves whether these suggested penalties are sufficient. When reading about this subject and recognising the great extent of this problem in other countries, especially America, I find it very difficult to believe that the suggested penalties in these two Amendments will be sufficient to stop this menace to young people.
11.0 p.m.
A vast amount of money is made by some people out of this very rich traffic. It is thousands of pounds; it must be hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is a terrible traffic, and it is terrible to think that money is being made from a traffic which is demoralising and destroying young life which otherwise would be wholesome. I lend my support to the strong plea made by my hon. Friend that the Joint Under-Secretary of State should convey to the Home Secretary what has been said in this debate—and convey it, too, to the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose name is appended to the Bill.
I do not see his name appended to these Amendments, but I take it that it is understood that he is in support of them. The Bill will apply to Scotland. Already, this social scourge has raised its head in Glasgow, our main city, and I certainly, representing a Scottish constituency, want to suggest that we need to make the penalties as strong as we can. I hope there will be another look at these Amendments to see whether they are really sufficient to help break the back of what is becoming a great social menace.
I hope that when the Bill reaches another place another look will be had at this part of the Clause to see whether a stronger deterrent can be found.

Mr. Woodhouse: I am grateful to the House for making it clear that there is no disposition to take these offences lightly or to allow the Bill to go through without adequate penalties attached to it, and I will certainly convey to both my right hon. Friends the points which have been made in the debate in case it should be considered that any further Amendment might be desirable to increase the penalties yet more severely at a later stage.
Nevertheless, I would remind the House that these are now, in terms of comparable legislation, very severe penalties. To answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole), it is customary in legislation now to leave a fine unlimited in amount in the case of charges on indictment which will be heard before the higher court, and that very fact in itself constitutes a very severe penalty.
To the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) I would say that there is inevitably a danger of some repetition. We discussed this matter fairly exhaustively both on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, and I do not believe that it would be helpful to the House, or, perhaps, even within the rules of order, for me to follow in detail all the points that he has made, though, once again, I will undertake to convey them not only to my right hon. Friend, but to other Ministers who may be concerned in them.
I have, of course, no ground for contradicting the statements that the hon. Member has made, but proof in a court of law is another matter, and, with all respect to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), what the hon. Member for Paddington, North was really asking for was neither new penalties nor new offences but some way of getting at people against whom, in present circumstances, there is not sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.

Mr. Parkin: I shall not interrupt at any length, but is it possible to find a formula by which the word "possession"

includes the person who is, in effect, the beneficial owner of a club through the ownership of its lease or through ownership of the shares in the company through a nominee?

Mr. Woodllouse: I am bound to tell the hon. Member, as I have told him before in Committee, that this would lie outside the scope of the Bill and indeed outside the functions of the Home Office, but I have undertaken before, and do so again, to transmit the arguments which he has been bringing forward to the proper quarter.

Mr. Manuel: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that if an employee of a club is found in possession he is the person proceeded against and not the owner?

Mr. Woodhouse: The owner could be proceeded against under other provisions of the law if he knowingly allowed this kind of thing to take place on his premises. The possession is by the individual in whose possession the table was found, and nobody else can be charged with that particular offence.

Mr. Manuel: In Scotland, in connection with less serious offences, such as selling drink out of licensed hours, it is not the barman but the publican who has to stand the major penalty.

Mr. Woodhouse: I can see the hon. Member's point, but I was explaining that there are other provisions under which the person who allowed his premises to be used in this way could be charged. If he was not in possession of the tablets himself he could not be charged with possession, and unauthorised possession is the one new offence which the Bill creates.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North wished to be sure that an adequate weapon would be placed in the hands of the police. I am grateful to him for his remarks about the desirability of equipping the police with weapons which can be used to defeat this detestable traffic and also for what he said about the good name of the police' which is apt to be besmirched by the kind of accusations which may be made by the sort of people he was talking about. I warmly endorse everything that the hon. Member said on those subjects.
The police, who have been closely consulted at every stage of the preparation of the Bill, are satisfied that it will give them adequate power to deal with the people against whom it is directed. It is, perhaps, a little beside the point on the issue of the penalties which we are now discussing, but I have heard no reservations or misgivings on the part of the police about the weapon which we seek to put in their hands. I hope, therefore, that the Amendments will prove to be acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 25, at end insert:
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

Clause 7.—(REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.)

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out from "instrument" to the end of line 2 and to insert:
(2) A statutory instrument made under this Act by the Secretary of State (other than one containing an order providing for the addition of a substance to the Schedule to this Act) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) A statutory instrument containing such an order as aforesaid shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
In debate on Second Reading and in Committee the point was made that in view of the wide powers given to the Secretary of State by Clause 6 to add substances to the Schedule, and the resultant uncertainty as to what substances at some future date might be so added, it would be reasonable that Orders making such additions should be subject to affirmative Resolution procedure. In Committee, I undertook that the Government would introduce an Amendment to that end.
The effect of the Amendment is to require any Order providing for the addition of substances to the Schedule to be laid in draft and to be approved by an affirmative Resolution of each House of Parliament. Orders removing substances from the Schedule and Regulations made by the Secretary of State under powers given to him by Clause 1(1) will be subject to annulment by a negative Resolution by either House.

Mr. K. Robinson: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcomed the undertaking given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State in Committee and I now welcome its implementation. I am sure that this is the best way to deal with the matter. I hope, looking briefly ahead to the following Amendments, that this will not involve the hon. Gentleman in future in too many Statutory Instruments, particularly too many requiring the affirmative Resolution procedure.

Sir H. L instead: In Standing Committee I questioned whether the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State was necessary and I still question whether the Amendment will improve the Bill. But no back bencher will ever oppose too strongly a proposal from the Government that power given to them should be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure and, therefore, I shall not take my objections far. But I do wish to put on record two reasons why I think that the Amendment, basically, is not a good one.
First, if one looks over the whole range of medicine and drugs legislation, I think that I am right in saying that this is the only Bill in which a drug or poison is added to a schedule by an affirmative Resolution. As I said in Committee, perhaps the only reason I welcome this proposal is that it will add confusion to an already confused state of affairs, which will, perhaps, make complete amendment of the law rather more necessary and desirable.
Secondly, I think that the affirmative Resolution procedure is probably a mistake, because this House is always complaining that it is overworked and has to deal with too much detail which would be better delegated to others. A committee considered Ministers' powers 20 or 30 years ago, when drugs and poisons were given as a typical example of something which the House should delegate to Ministers because the matter was so technical that the House was not equipped to deal with it positively.
Here again, we have a good example of the House saying that it wants to be rid of detail and to delegate it to a Minister or some other body, yet cheerfully accepting the positive duty of adding something of a highly technical


nature to a highly technical list. I feel that the House should not have to give positive time to deal with such a matter. It would be better to leave it to the Secretary of State, with reserve power in the hands of the House if it wished to use it to object to what he proposed to do.
This being an offer on a plate to the House on behalf of the Executive, the last thing that I would wish to do would be to oppose such a gesture, but the two objections that I have mentioned are worth putting on record.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule.—(SUBSTANCES REFERRED TO IN THIS ACT.)

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, after "ephedrine", to insert "N-ethylephedrine".
Perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss at the same time the following two Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt that would be convenient.

Mr. Woodhouse: These are Amendments to create the exceptions to the list of substances in the Schedule and they therefore have the effect of removing substances from it. I make this point in relation to the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) just now. They will, of course, in future circumstances, be subject to the negative and not the affirmative Resolution procedure.

The Amendments arise because of consultations with the pharmaceutical industry, in the course of which various suggestions were made to the Home Office for the exclusion of preparations containing amphetamine-like substances which had no harmful effects. Five substances are already listed at the end of paragraph 3 of the Schedule which come within the scope of the first part of that paragraph, but which are accepted as not having harmful effects. As a result of the consultations, it is now proposed to make exceptions of the three further

substances whose names I will not attempt to recite, but which are equally free from harmful effect.

Mr. Cole: I protested in Standing Committee that this is now becoming quite ridiculous. One of these substances has the name tropic acid N-ethyl-N-(γ-picolyl) amide. This is not a technical Bill for the entertainment of chemists, but to stop a noxious trade. Surely there is a method by which the proprietary names of these substances can be put into the Schedule as a guide to the average constable about what are the recognisable features of these tablets. Is it really expected that the average constable will go around with a piece of paper, printed by the police force, on which there will be these various names which are quite unpronounceable and un-understandable even by many chemists.
I know that these things have to be specified, but surely it should have been possible, even with all this rigmarole, to have put the proprietary names afterwards. We all know that "purple hearts" are drinamyl and there are similar names for the other tablets. I ask for a simple method to be found by which people outside the House can know what we are discussing when we speak of these things, let alone the police constable who may have to deal with them.
We are very fussy about how and when a constable shall make an arrest, but then we have this double-Dutch that only, a comparatively few qualified chemists can understand. I make no apology for making this protest again, even at this late hour. By all means let us use these names for identification, but let us also have the proprietary names in as well.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 8, at end insert, "oxethazaine".

In line 9, leave out "and prenylamine" and insert:
, prenylamine and tropic arid N-ethyl-N-(γ-picolyl) amide".—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

Bill read the Third time and passed.

ELDERLY PERSONS (YOUTH HELP)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.20 p.m.

Sir John Foster: It is perhaps fitting that, after the last debate, in which the House considered the pessimistic view of youth, I should raise for a few minutes the question of something which is constructive, both for our youth and for our elderly people.
We must recognise that one of the problems of our modern youth is its extra energy, which sometimes gets misdirected in a manner which has been seen recently in the riots, or near-riots, in some seaside towns. We must also recognise the very serious problem which the elderly sick, or the elderly lonely, present in not always getting the attention which they should have because there are not available people to visit them and help with their various difficulties.
I therefore ask the House to consider a movement which has grown up, but which has no name, no premises, and only one telephone, although it is a continuing organisation. Although nameless, this organisation has managed to get thousands of young people in London to visit thousands of old people, and do jobs for them, such as shopping, going other errands, and doing things about the house. The movement is recognised to the extent that in many boroughs the medical officer of health, the after-care officials, and the district nurses have come to know that they can appeal to a number of young people to come in to help when help is needed for the problems of the lonely and the elderly. This movement was recently given £400 worth of paint, and young people painted scores of old persons' homes. It is now possible for welfare officials to ring up and state who of the old people have not been visited lately, or who are in need of help with shopping or something of that sort.
All this appeals to the need felt by young people to do something constructive. The dividing line between somebody who rushes into a crowd of peaceful people who are camping, or bathing

on the seashore, and knocks them over, and the young persons who will do something helpful and constructive for the elderly, is a very fine one. In many boys' clubs it has been found that the person who, at one moment is the leader of a gang of roughs, going about causing damage, has been persuaded to go along and do something constructive.
My appeal this evening is that this movement should be given a further impetus by the Government. We are already grateful for the fact that the Department of Education has seen its way to make it possible to give a grant to enable the organisation to form itself into a legal entity so that it may acquire a name, and trustees; but it will need to acquire premises. It will never suddenly, at any moment, become over-organised, because the structure which I envisage is one of trustees for the money which may come from foundations and other organisations, and a council of elders, acquainted with the problems of the organisation. This, however, would not be meant to control it, but merely to advise and help in its relations with the authorities.
The whole object of the organisation will be to do useful jobs. There are thousands of elderly persons in London alone who do not get sufficient visiting, and who have difficulties in getting out of their homes, and who want help when they have not sufficient heating, and help with the inevitable problems which they want to raise with the local welfare officials but which they are not capable of doing themselves.
The object of the organisation, when it gets its name, will be to appoint a central location for the jobs which are required to be done by the local authorities—and which will be done by these youths who are available in ever-growing numbers. The appeal is entirely to the need for young people to do something constructive. The value of the scheme is partly that it helps to solve the problem of juvenile delinquency and the excesses of youth which we have seen. It will not solve the problem altogether; there will always remain a percentage of youths who have to be restrained or disciplined if they break the law. But if we can get people helping the less fortunate of the elderly, youth will follow that lead.
The movement has been started by a young barrister who has found time from his busy practice to collect by word of mouth the names of hundreds and even thousands of young people in London. In every London borough he has a councillor—this is his only organisation—who acts as liaison officer in respect of the jobs which have arisen, partly through finding out the information by canvassing and partly, as the movement got going, through the medical officers of health and other local authority officers getting these young people to do these jobs.
But when the time comes that one has thousands of these young people, one must have a definite organisation, with a paid staff, to receive requests for help and to get the particular young people to visit the particular old people who need this help. It is an exciting idea. There are many institutions in the country through which this is being done locally, but I hope that those who have influence, and especially the Government, will give a lead in a nation-wide movement in which the appeal to youth will be that there is something constructive to be done and organised by them, and for which they will be responsible.
The older members of the population would help by giving support behind the scenes. I feel that this confidence in the spirit of youth to do something constructive will be repaid by a diminution in juvenile delinquency, which often is just the dividing line between high spirits which are constructive and high spirits which are destructive. The optimistic side of the picture is that this scheme works. One cannot say, "Perhaps it will not work. Perhaps young people do not want constructive things to do". It has worked in the movement which I have described and in other parts of the country. We know of local organisations—boys' clubs, religious organisations, the Catholic Youth, the Methodist Youth—which undertake this task of helping the old, the lonely and the sick. But what has not happened so far is the provision by the welfare authorities of these cases in which help is needed. At present, this is rather haphazard. If one could organise it centrally, and, at the same time, get universal support, one would then be able to collect information

about old and lonely people who need help.
The organisation which I am asking should be set up would be designed to achieve this purpose. On the one hand, one would have the volunteer young people anxious to do these jobs—as has been proved—and, on the other, one would have information about the lonely, elderly and sick who needed help. The problem is to bring the two together. This movement has already proved that it can work. It has proved its appeal to the young. Regrettably, there is no need to prove the number of people who need the help. The movement could be very much encouraged. The next step needed is a nation-wide appeal, and Government grant supplemented by money from private sources.
One might start in London, because here we have the councillors in each borough already interested, we have the volunteers in each borough, and we have the embryo organisation already functioning and doing a job. When it has proved itself further, one might extend the movement to all parts of the country. I hope that this debate will help in publicity being given to the idea, extending its appeal to all those in the population v/ho want to help with the problems of youth and of the elderly.

11.32 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) in his very exciting proposition. I hope that the idea of the scheme which he has put to the House will spread nationally. In the provincial town of Plymouth, we have already tried this experiment in a small way. Some time ago, I gave a house to the Guild of Social Service for evicted families. I am glad to say that this house was thoroughly done up, with the exception of putting in a bathroom and installing electricity, entirely by a group of young volunteers.
Quite recently, the Guild called a meeting and asked the young people how they felt they could help further. Besides suggesting that they might help with elderly people's gardens—we have a lot of gardens in Plymouth, and it is often very difficult for old people to keep their gardens in order—they suggested rather


exciting projects, such as going on to Dartmoor and trying to keep it clean, helping with orphan children and looking after the sick and the elderly.
Only the other day, I had a case in point. An old man, living alone, was returned home from hospital and, most unfortunately, none of his relations was notified. He was left in the house without food for about two days before he was discovered. If there were such an organisation as that outlined by my hon. and learned Friend, these cases could be looked after.
During the war, we started an organisation which began in a small way, setting up girls' training corps. I was then working in the London boroughs. We found that several of us had similar ideas in setting up these small corps, and we eventually had a joint meeting between London and Essex, and formed what eventually became a nation-wide organisation known as the National Association of Girls' Training Corps. I hope that the plan which my hon. and learned Friend has put to us will be the embryo of a much wider organisation in the future.
There is a tremendous amount of good will and energy available among young people, and I am glad to say that there is money, too, because a lot of them are extremely generous in the donations which they make to help people. I am sure that we can call upon this spirit among young people, a spirit opposed to the one we usually hear about in reports of the doings of "Mods" and "Rockers", and, I believe, a stronger spirit, too. If these resources can be called into play, there would be tremendous benefit not only for the young people themselves but for the nation as a whole.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will give a helpful reply to my hon. and learned Friend and, encourage this organisation to go forward with a new spirit in the knowledge that it will have Government backing as well as the backing of the public as a whole.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I will delay the House for only one minute. I congratulate, if it is not presumptuous of me, the hon. and learned

Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) on a moving and important speech about subjects on which the House does not spend much time.
The hon. and learned Member has been a Member of this House longer than I, but if he had never done anything else, what he said tonight is of considerable human importance; and the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), who is a distinguished champion of human problems, has reinforced her hon. and learned Friend's remarks with the plea which she made.
Both the hon. Lady and the hon. and learned Member have spoken of a problem about which something can be done. It is an important, a heartwarming problem. I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond sympathetically, because attention has been focused on something that is a practical answer to a very practical problem. This is the sort of subject for an Adjournment debate, for it affects many hundreds of thousands of people. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member on his initiative.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Elon Griffiths: Without the distinction of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), or my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), I would like simply to say that I have been struck by the gap which exists between many young people and public life. A survey has been made recently by an American sociologist in a Yorkshire town. He devised what he has described as a "Pied Piper index"—a measure of what would happen to a town if all the young people under the age of 35 suddenly left to follow a Pied Piper.
The survey indicated, to the professor's satisfaction, that if the people under 35 left an American town, that town would collapse, because they were the heart and soul of its political, economic and cultural life. However, he concluded from his studies in the Yorkshire town that if all the people under 35 left very little would happen because the young people, he maintained, were not actively participating in the social, political and cultural life of the community.
That professor may have exaggerated in both respects, but even if there is some truth in his conclusion—that there is a gap between our young people and our public life—it is a sad indictment. I believe that the proposal that my hon. and learned Friend has put forward is a good way of beginning to bridge this gap. I commend it for more than therapeutic reasons; more because of the possibility that it will, somehow, reduce juvenile delinquency.
There are good reasons why young people want to be of help to the old and lonely. They have a strong conscience about it and this conscience can be mobilised in a civilised society to give aid to others. If the young can be brought together, to participate, they will be giving service not in an intangible way, but in a way that matters most to the young, in a practical and constructive way.
If the community is willing to help those who are old and lonely, and if the young can be brought together to work together, that will benefit many people. Having spoken to many of the people concerned, I should like strongly to commend the suggestion which my hon. and learned Friend has made tonight.

11.39 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I welcome without reserve the speech that has been made by my hon and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) this evening. Some of the young people who are engaged on the particular project which he has described to the House are, I believe, listening to this debate. They may feel that we do not have a very full House to listen to his speech, but they should, know that it is fairly rare for an Adjournment debate to attract four speakers in the way that this one has done, and four speakers expressing so unanimous a view.
Some, I suppose, might feel that there should be no need for voluntary services by young people of the kind that my hon. and learned Friend has described. They might point to the range of statutory services that are available to help elderly people. They might point to the voluntary organisations that exist

specifically for that purpose, and they might, I suppose, contend that if all these organisations were functioning satisfactorily there should be no place for voluntary help by young people.
It is true that all these organisations exist, that they have been steadily improved over the years, and that they will develop greatly, but I believe that there is and probably always will be a place for voluntary service by young people. This kind of activity on the part of organised youth groups and clubs is, of course, of considerable standing. The Albemarle Report, four years ago, recognised that many young people do wish to have recognised their ability to make, as they put it, "a significant contribution to society."
Certainly, this concept of community service is deeply embedded in many youth organisations, for example, in the ideals of the Scout and Guide movement; thousands of young people in the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance Brigade belong to organisations whose purpose is to help the aged and distressed. But it is my impression that in recent years there has been a really quite remarkable growth of interest by young people in schemes for helping the elderly, the lonely and others in the community who are in need.
Voluntary Service Overseas is one outstanding example of a scheme whereby young people are given the opportunity to be of service. The founder of that movement, Mr. Alec Dickson, has recently started an organisation which gives to young people the chance of providing voluntary service full time for a period at home. With some encouragement from the Department of Education, the Youth Service at Portsmouth has a most interesting project entitled "Youth Action", a project somewhat similar to that which has been described by my hon. and learned Friend. But I agree that Mr. Steen and his friends have in recent years built up a movement in London which is in some respects unique and which is certainly full of promise.
My hon. and learned Friend has described the kind of activities upon which these young people have been engaged. I understand that there are now over 1,500 volunteers from youth


clubs, schools and training colleges who are giving regular service. My Department has been in touch with Mr. Steen for some months, and I have had the opportunity of discussing with him his plans for the future. His proposals were considered by the Youth Service Development Council, which advises us on matters concerned with youth clubs.
Both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science have much sympathy with what Mr. Steen is trying to do. In consequence, we have been able to offer him a grant of £3,000 for the first year of his activities, and we hope that we shall be able to make a grant for two succeeding years when we see how the scheme develops.
My hon. and learned Friend said that this organisation had as yet no name and no committee. It will be necessary for the movement to be put on a somewhat more formal basis than at present. It will be necessary for it to be constituted into a legal entity. We shall then be able to pay out the grant to which I have referred. I may say that the grant comes from funds that are devoted to experimental purposes in the Youth Service, and this particular grant represents one of the largest we have made.
My hon. and learned Friend has recognised that it is not enough for such organisations as this to appeal simply to young people's sense of compassion, and the movement we are now discussing has certainly shown that it is aware of the importance of bringing hard sense and imaginative sympathy to bear on the needs of those whom it is trying to help. Co-operation with other authorities working in the field is essential if one is to

get the full benefit of a scheme such as this.
It seems to me, too, that for this organisation a policy of gradual development rather than sudden expansion may be the right way to make progress. It is my understanding that the present plan is to set up in a few London boroughs a thorough organisation which will attempt to provide in these specific areas voluntary services on a comprehensive scale.
I am also informed that the London County Council has shown considerable interest in the scheme. We have invited it to consider what additional help it can give. I hope that the boroughs in which the organisation is working will be responsive, and will continue to co-operate in its activities. I hope, too, that industry and other voluntary sources will generously support Mr. Steen's scheme, and that he will be able to make an early start on putting his plan into effect.
In a complex and fast-moving society such as ours, there are, undoubtedly thousands of people who are lonely. There are many more whose needs are not discovered by all the organisations working in the field. I believe, there fore, that the subject that my hon. and learned Friend has introduced this evening is an important one. I am sure that young people have a great contribution to make—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes to Twelve o'clock.